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.

Resignation of Member

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to pay some words of tribute to the member of Parliament for Durham, who I first encountered when I was a newly minted MP. The member for Durham was his party's critic at the time for Bill C-7, which had to do with RCMP collective bargaining.

It was my first assignment on a bill. I sat in on the public safety committee, and I have to say that debating that bill with the member for Durham gave me an unrealistic expectation about debate in this place because it was principled, sophisticated and well executed. Even though we did not agree on all of the points of that bill and, in fact, disagreed on many of them, he carried out parliamentary debate in the style I thought was appropriate. Things got so downright collegial that it earned him a quote in one of my very first householders. It was not an authorized quote, but it was on the public record, so it was fair game. Now that he is leaving public life, I feel it is time to reciprocate, so I may have a few nice things to say.

That relationship further developed later in the 42nd Parliament when I had the honour of sitting in on a study of Canadian sovereignty in the north. We were able to travel to northern Canada together. That was a great trip in its own right and I learned a lot, but one of the things I really enjoyed about that trip was the opportunity to get to know the member for Durham better and to discuss some of the issues of the day in a less public forum. That was certainly a pleasure.

One of the lessons of that experience for me, and for the folks who looked at that report or the joint all-party press conference we did at the end of that study, was that it was a fine example of when parliamentarians, who come from different political movements with different ideas about where the country should head, roll up their sleeves and immerse themselves in the study of an important issue together, they can find ways to find common ground instead of just finding ways to wedge and divide. That report showed nicely how the priorities of maintaining Canada's sovereignty in the north and some of the military components of that can dovetail nicely, with an emphasis on investing in the people of the north and making sure that their needs are met. I was very proud of the work that we all did together to make that case to Parliament and, more widely, to Canadians.

As I say, one of the great contributions, which was demonstrated later when the member for Durham became leader of the Conservative Party, was his ability to state differences of opinion in a principled way and in a way that promoted the kind of debate that Canadians want from their politicians. They do not need to see us agree on everything all the time or to cover over important differences, but to explore them in ways that are far more constructive than we sometimes explore those differences in this place.

He talked earlier about the tendency toward division that we are witnessing in politics right now and the dangers of performance politics. I think we can say with hindsight that the member for Durham exhibited a refreshing lack of demagoguery in the way that he presented the Conservative position, and for that I am grateful, as I know many Canadians are. There are a lot of lessons for all of us to learn in how we carry ourselves in public debate.

I know that can be a difficult thing to do, not just for members themselves but especially their families, so I too want to add my voice to the chorus of thanks to Rebecca, Mollie and Jack, who supported their husband and father through this journey. I thank, on behalf of New Democrats, the member for Durham for his service in this place, and I offer my well wishes for what awaits him as he exits public life.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a cornerstone of policing across much of rural Canada, in the Canadian north and in many towns and large urban areas. Its members keep our communities safe. The RCMP is the frontline police service of jurisdiction in the territories, in all provinces except Quebec and Ontario, and in more than 150 municipalities.

The Government of Canada shares the cost of these policing services. In large municipalities, the federal government pays 10% of salary, equipment and other costs. For municipalities with a population of fewer than 15,000 people, the federal government pays 30% of these costs.

I fully agree with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster that RCMP members deserve fair compensation for their work in keeping our streets safe. That is why, in 2017, our government passed Bill C-7. This historic, first-ever collective agreement between the Government of Canada and the bargaining agent for RCMP members, the National Police Federation, came into effect on August 6 of last year. The agreement provided a reasonable economic increase and market adjustments to address wage differences that existed between RCMP members and reservists and other police services across Canada. It marked the first time RCMP members had received a pay increase since 2017. It also brought their salaries in line with other police services across Canada. The agreement was fair both for our hard-working RCMP members and for Canadian taxpayers.

Our government is mindful that policing represents a significant cost for all communities and local governments. Officials are working hard to engage directly with every contract policing jurisdiction on the costs to implement the new collective agreement. They have written to all partners to provide information, and meetings with individual jurisdictions to discuss their specific situations have started and will continue in the coming weeks.

In closing, let me assure members that our government will continue to work with contract jurisdictions on the financial impacts of the collective agreement, and we will continue to support the RCMP and all jurisdictions to ensure the safety and security of our communities.

[Brian Sauvé]

No, the reason I expressed my interest with the clerk when he called this morning—I appreciate the short timelines that this committee is dealing with—is that any opportunity to have the membership of the RCMP's voice heard with respect to amending the RCMP Act is an opportunity for us to speak on their behalf. If we didn't, it would be an opportunity lost.

In terms of consulting with those who represent the PPS or the membership on the Hill, you know, Bill C-7 kind of precluded any organization that was asking to represent the membership of the RCMP—it's a grey area in Bill C-7—from having any associational activity outside the law enforcement community. We've been very careful in the NPF about how we associate and who we hitch our banner to. Most of that has been within the Canadian police association community—the Ontario Provincial Police Association, la Fraternité des policiers et policières à Québec, and that sort of thing. We haven't really linked up with a PSAC or a CUPE or a UCCO, for example.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Well, as I said, Monsieur Dubé, we have had an enormous volume of work to get through, as has this committee, as has Parliament, generally. The work program has advanced as rapidly as we could make it. It takes time and effort to put it all together. I'm glad we're at this stage, and I hope the parliamentary machinery will work well enough this week that we can get it across the finish line.

It has been a very significant agenda, when you consider there has been Bill C-7, Bill C-21, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-37, Bill C-46, Bill C-66, Bill C-71, Bill C-59, Bill C-97, Bill C-83, Bill C-93 and Bill C-98. It's a big agenda and we have to get it all through the same relatively small parliamentary funnel.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

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

Madam Speaker, this is a continuation of my remarks on Bill C-98 from over a week ago.

I would be remiss if I did not note my disappointment with the last vote. This was an opportunity for the government, with a Prime Minister who said that the government would be transparent by default, to release the critical document in the Admiral Mark Norman affair, the memo from Michael Wernick, from the early days, on why Mr. Norman was picked out of 73 people on a PCO list. Mr. Wernick is not a lawyer, so it is not legal advice. Canadians know Michael Wernick and they know the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Unredacting that memo would have been a gesture of goodwill on the part of the government, in light of the fact that the Crown had to admit in court that it had no reasonable prospect of success at trial. After the terrible ordeal Mr. Norman has been through, that would have been a nice recognition. I have to say that I was disappointed.

As I was saying in my previous remarks, one of the main issues I have with Bill C-98, and with some of the bills we are debating now, in the final days of this Parliament, is the fact that if the bill were coming here after robust consultations with the people affected, we might be in a position to say that this is legislation that is in the long-term interest of the RCMP and other groups caught by the legislation, but it is not.

Bill C-98 is another example of legislation related to public safety, related to peace officers and related to police officers that misses the mark yet again. It is unfortunate, because as the minister would know, we tried, in good faith, at the beginning of this Parliament, to work with the government on these issues.

The minister would remember Bill C-7, the RCMP unionization bill. We worked with the government, and thanks to the member for Beaches—East York, it accepted our recommendations to make the provisions of Bill C-7 more equitable for members, regardless of what province they were in with respect to workplace injuries, rehabilitation and supports. On legislation related to the RCMP, we provided substantive input that helped with that legislation.

Canadians see at the end of this parliamentary session that we are getting a little raucous and a little feisty. An election is on the horizon. I will remind them that at the beginning of this Parliament, when it came to the RCMP, in light of a Supreme Court decision—

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to follow my friend from Scarborough—Guildwood, who has had millions of minutes in this chamber. However, I am at a loss to ascribe any real substance to those minutes, despite the fact that I hold him in great affection. He has been very helpful on some projects related to veterans, and on that matter, maybe he can help get the Afghan monument finally done.

I share the comments from a lot of people today in that I have frustration with when the bill is being put forward. I think all members of this chamber have tremendous respect for the men and women who wear the uniform of the RCMP or wear the uniform of the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, who would be impacted by the bill. Nothing shows a lack of priority like introducing bills when the tulips are coming up here in Ottawa. This is when we are in the final weeks of the parliamentary sitting, and so when the government introduces something in this time period, it shows how much it has prioritized it. If the Liberals are doing that in the fourth year of their mandate with literally a few weeks left in the session, it actually shows disdain for the underlying issues of the bill when they have had four years related to it.

My friend from Scarborough—Guildwood was suggesting that we needed to stay in our partisan lane and was bemoaning the fact that we are decrying the lack of consultation and lack of prioritization by the government, but the Liberals have left us no choice. We do not even think, at the pace things are going, that this will be substantially looked at in committee, despite his nice offer to take phone numbers of union members who were ignored in the preparations behind the bill. We will not even be able to get time to hear from them, and that is amiss, because our job as an official opposition is to hold the government to account, critique and push for better. I should remind my friend, the Liberal deputy House leader, that better is always possible, and this is an example.

The bill was introduced on May 7, 2019, literally in the final weeks of Parliament, much like Bill C-93, another public safety bill, which was introduced in the same month. What is shocking is that these are areas the Liberals have talked about since their first weeks in government. In fact, the marijuana pledge is probably the only accomplishment of the Prime Minister in the Liberals' four years in government, and they are putting the cannabis records suspension bill to the House in the final weeks. Who have they not consulted on that? It is law enforcement, which is really quite astounding.

Canadians might remember that in the first few months of the Liberal government, back in 2015-16, the Liberals were fond of consultations, which I think my friend from Sarnia—Lambton and others have made note of. In fact, there were little vignettes created saying, “We're going to consult. We're going to have public consultation.” I guess after that the Liberals stopped doing it entirely.

My real concern in the matter of public safety and security bills is that the CBSA alone will be swept into elements of Bill C-98 and the 14,000 people in that department, including the almost 7,000 uniformed people at 1,200 locations across this country, should be consulted on a substantive piece of legislation that would impact them. They were not. In fact, the Customs and Immigration Union has been demanding to be consulted, and not at the committee stage in June, a few days before Parliament may rise and go into an election. They should have been consulted prior to drafting the legislation. That is the real problem I have with this.

It is the same with the cannabis record suspension legislation, which is another public safety bill being thrown into the mix in the final weeks. The Canadian Police Association was not consulted. Tom Stamatakis, the president, had this to say:

Were we directly consulted? Not in an extensive way. We had some exchanges, but we didn't have a specific consultation with respect to this bill.

It is the same now with Bill C-98. The underlying people impacted by it, including members of the Customs and Immigration Union, were not consulted on the bill.

We also see other important pieces of public safety legislation still lingering in the legislative process. For example, Bill C-83, legislation to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, is now at committee. That committee is already charged with other legislation from the final year of the government.

A lot of us are watching Bill C-59 as well, a quite comprehensive, almost omnibus bill on national security. It is in the Senate committee. I have been advocating on that bill with regard to the no-fly list, supporting the good work done by the families of the no-fly list kids to make sure that we can have a system to remove false positives and remove children from this list, which is ineffective in terms of public safety if it has tons of erroneous and duplicative names on it.

It is also substantially unfair to Canadians, especially young children, when they are impacted by being on the no-fly list. We need a mechanism for them to take themselves off the list. That is in Bill C-59. I am publicly urging Senate colleagues to make sure they do a proper review, but get it done quickly.

As we can see, there is already a backlog of public safety and security legislation in Parliament now, not to mention a number of other bills being introduced in May.

Stepping out of the public safety area for a moment, it should also concern Canadians that some of the signature issues for indigenous Canadians also had to wait until the final months of the government. They include child welfare legislation, which I think I spoke about in this place maybe 10 days ago, and the indigenous language bill, which was also tossed in at the end of the year when the flowers are coming up here in Ottawa.

That is a lack of respect. It shows there is a priority given to speech, imagery and photos with the Prime Minister, and a lack of priority given to action on public safety issues and on issues related to reconciliation. Governing is more than lofty language. It is delivering on the priorities for Canadians and the things they need.

To review, I would like to see substantive committee time for Bill C-98 so that the Customs and Immigration Union can be properly consulted. The same goes for the RCMP. In fact, I was the public safety critic before I took a little diversion and a national tour to get into a leadership race. We actually worked with the government on Bill C-7, which was the RCMP union bill. We have tried to work with the government, particularly when it comes to uniformed service members. In fact, we pushed for amendments to Bill C-7 so that there would not be a hodgepodge approach to workers' compensation for our RCMP men and women and so that there would not be different standards in different provinces. These are important bills, and people should be consulted.

I would also urge the former chair who spoke, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, to make sure that adequate time is given. Despite the government's claim that it would never use time allocation and never use omnibus bills, we have seen it use these measures literally by the week. The government House leader appears to relish it now. My friend the deputy House leader wishes he could erase all the speeches of outrage he gave in opposition about the use of time allocation and omnibus legislation, because now he is part of the government House leader team that the member for Scarborough—Guildwood blamed for the delay that we have with these bills, and he uses it with relish.

Let us make sure we have the proper committee time to look at the changes to the RCMP Act and the CBSA Act to make sure we are doing a service to the people who will be impacted by them, whether it is on a public complaints process or other elements in Bill C-98. The consultation should have been done first, but to do this properly, the committee debate time cannot be rushed. We will work with them, but we want to make sure the people impacted are part of the committee review process.

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, early in its mandate the government introduced a bill to repeal Bill C-377, but did not repeal it right away. Then, what we heard on Friday was that every assault by the government since then on collective bargaining, whether the tight restrictions it wanted to put on collective bargaining in Bill C-7 for RCMP members or the back-to-work legislation it rammed through on Friday, should somehow be forgiven because it repealed Bill C-377.

Early in its mandate the government brought in the child benefit, which did something for low-income families. The funny thing is that that is not in keeping with the government's theme either. Looking at the changes to parental leave under EI, how are low-income families going to be able to access that? They already have low incomes and cannot afford to live on 33% of their income. The extended parental leave time is for who? Is it for low-income families that want to spend more time at home with each other, or is it for the high-income families the government said it was taking on when it eliminated the original UCB?

This is the thing. Early on, the Liberals implemented a couple of their election commitments to workers and low-income families, and that is now supposed to forgive everything else they do for their Bay Street buddies and big multinational companies. The evidence does not bear out that they are serious about helping real Canadians who are struggling every day.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts. I have heard some good feedback on this.

What struck me this morning were some of the statements made by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. He is a good friend. I really respect the person, but obviously, we have different ideas. He made statements about union bosses and union leaders and about the Liberals just saying “thank you” because some of the unions were putting money in and campaigning against the Conservatives in the last election. I want to say that I totally disagree with that. The unions were campaigning against the Conservatives, yes, but they were also supporting anyone who could beat the Conservatives, and that was because they have a very bad reputation for taking away gains from labour that people have fought for all their lives, and they wanted to make sure that those people never got back in power until they got their act together and started to respect what labour could do.

We are pleased that the government is finally moving forward to repeal legislation based purely on a backward ideology that forces public servants to go to work sick and that totally undermines the principle of collective bargaining. We have to ask what took the Liberals so long to bring this bill forward. What took them so long to act? Of course, this is a question many Canadians are asking more and more often about the current government. Why are the Liberals not keeping the promises they made during the election, and why are they so slow to act or are not acting at all?

The list of broken promises is far too long to list in the time I have today, but we all know about the Liberals' failure to support electoral reform, their failure to restore door-to-door postal delivery, and the failure to keep the promise to make government more transparent. We also know about their failure to support pay equity legislation, anti-scab legislation, and measures to increase retirement security. One of their most shameful failures is the unwillingness to protect workers' pensions.

We have heard over and over again expressions of sympathy from the Prime Minister and his Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development for Canadian workers, like those at Sears Canada who have lost severance and termination pay and health care and life insurance benefits. They now face reduced pension benefits.

Canadians need and expect more than their sympathy and their shallow talking points. They need action. They need the government to change Canada's inadequate bankruptcy and solvency laws. We have shown the Liberals how this can be achieved, but still the government fails to act or move to protect millions of vulnerable Canadians. As my friend from Timmins—James Bay is fond of asking, when is the government going to put the protection of Canadian pensions ahead of Bay Street profits? It is a very good question and a question millions of Canadians would like to know the answer to.

Let me come back to Bill C-62. New Democrats want to undo Harper's anti-labour legacy and build a fair framework for collective bargaining. We welcome the introduction of Bill C-62, which would formally put an end to measures introduced by the former government. We know that the government Bill C-5 and Bill C-34, both introduced last year, have been languishing on the Order Paper since their introduction. We hope that their being amalgamated into Bill C-62 means that the government is finally ready to move forward.

Bill C-62 would reverse the attacks by the former Conservative government on the collective bargaining rights of federal public service employees, and it should be passed without delay. This bill would repeal the power given to the government to remove sick leave from federal public service collective agreements so that it could be changed unilaterally, outside of the bargaining process. The bill would also restore some of the changes to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act affecting collective bargaining, which the Conservatives had included in one of their budget implementation bills in 2013, such as those affecting the designation of essential services. New Democrats rallied against the Conservatives' agenda to curtail public service workers' right to strike. The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act was amended in December 2013 to remove the choice of dispute resolution being available to essential services.

In our 2015 platform, we promised Canadians we would stand up for public sector workers in light of the lost decade of Harper's union abuse. Supporting this bill makes good on that promise. A respectful relationship with the public service starts with safeguards to free and fair collective bargaining, not stacking the deck in favour of the employer.

Bill C-62 is aimed at repealing two blatantly anti-labour pieces of legislation introduced by the former Harper government: division 20 of Bill C-59 and Bill C-4. The first of these sought to unilaterally impose an inferior disability and sick leave management system on public servants, which was an unwarranted and significant attack on the rights of public service workers.

Bill C-4 would have drastically changed the rules for collective bargaining within the public service, giving the government full control over union rights, such as the right to strike and the right to arbitration. The government would have also determined what positions would be considered essential.

A key provision in the collective agreements of public service workers is sick leave, which allows full-time workers 15 days per year of leave for use in case of illness or injury. The previous Conservative government was determined to unilaterally change this provision by reducing the number of sick days from 15 to 6, eliminating banked sick days, and imposing a short-term disability plan for federal public servants.

The previous government claimed this change would have saved $900 million, despite evidence to the contrary. According to the 2014 parliamentary budget officer's report, “the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the core public administration.” That means most employees who call in sick are not replaced, resulting in no incremental costs to departments.

Under the Conservative legislation, workers would have been forced to choose between going to work sick or losing pay for basic necessities. Its legislation would eliminate all accumulated sick leave for public servants, reduce the amount of annual sick leave to 37.5 hours per year, subject to the absolute discretion of the employer, and institute a seven-day waiting period without pay before people could access short-term disability benefits.

I want to comment that, because I come from a union background. I served the union for 36 years. We had that seven-day waiting period also, and we made great gains. We proved to the company that having a waiting period of seven days would bring in workers who were sick, causing other workers to be sick, which actually caused a downturn in production because there were not have enough workers on the job to produce the machinery. Therefore, doing that was a step backward.

Both the NDP and the Liberals committed to reversing the changes during the last election. Bill C-62 would repeal the offending legislation, thus restoring sick leave provisions to public servants for the time being.

Bill C-62 would also revoke some of the more offensive Conservative legislation, including: giving government, as the employer, the right to unilaterally define essential services instead of negotiating an essential services agreement with the bargaining agent; undermining the right to strike by making it illegal to strike if at least 80% of the positions in a bargaining unit provide essential services, as defined by the employer; removing the bargaining agent's right to choose arbitration as a means of resolving collective bargaining disputes, making conciliation the default process, and undermining the workers in cases where the employer consents to arbitration by requiring arbitrators to give priority to Canada's fiscal circumstances relative to its stated budgetary policies. It also removed discrimination-based complaints by public servants from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That to me is a shame.

While we fully support Bill C-62, we also know there is more to be done to dismantle the Harper government's legacy of anti-labour legislation. Some of those measures include restoring the Canada Labour Code provisions pertaining to the rights of Canadians to refuse dangerous work. That was gutted by the Harper government, a right that everybody wants when they go into a workplace. Too many deaths have happened, and it should not be determined by the employer. The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act should be reinstated, bringing forward pay equity legislation, as well as the federal minimum wage, bringing Bill C-7 back to the House of Commons, and respecting the right of RCMP members to associate and bargain collectively.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-62, which addresses a key issue for all those who believe in democracy.

The NDP has always defended workers’ rights and the rights of all Canadians in order to ensure that no one is left behind. That is why we believe it is important to continue playing an active role in this debate. Unions are the machinery that make democracy work. They took part in every struggle and are constantly coming up with innovative ideas. They have given workers a voice and a measure of power. I applaud their work and their unwavering dedication, and I want Canada to remain an egalitarian society.

Unfortunately, in the past decade, we have neglected our public servants, violated their rights, and subjected them to dramatic cutbacks and restrictive legislative measures. Today, thousands of employees are still not being paid properly because of Phoenix. Once again, as always, the NDP stood by Canada’s public servants and their unions throughout the process. The NDP would like to see public servants and the government enjoy a relationship based on responsibility, trust, and respect, today and in the future. That is why we are proposing concrete measures to reinstate a healthy working climate and a relationship of trust in the public service.

Among other things, we propose protecting whistle-blowers; granting powers to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada; adopting a code of conduct for departmental staff; and restricting the growing use of temporary employment agencies to the detriment of permanent employees.

We are as determined as ever to pursue these important goals. It is not a question of modifying a few policies here and there. We need a real change in attitude. The NDP will continue to demand that the government re-establish a free and fair collective bargaining process in the public service, and that it safeguard acquired protections and rights.

On October 17, 2016, the government introduced Bill C-62, which we are discussing today. Yes, I said 2016. The bill is more than welcome. It is aimed at re-establishing fair framework legislation for labour relations in the public service, and it is raising a lot of expectations. In December 2013, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act was amended to eliminate the procedures for the choice of process of dispute resolution, including those involving essential services. The NDP vigorously opposed these amendments, which the Liberals are now looking at.

In our 2015 platform, we promised Canadians that we would defend the interests of public sector workers.

It is because of this promise, which we intend to keep, that we are supporting Bill C-62 today. The bill repeals various sections of the two profoundly anti-union legislative measures adopted by the former government, namely Bill C-59 and Bill C-4. The Harper government’s first legislative measure attacked by Bill C-62is the former Bill C-59, in particular section 20. The bill unilaterally imposed an inferior system for the management of disability and sick leave on public servants, which was an unjustified and major attack on the rights of public service workers.

That bill also abolished employees' right to good faith bargaining, taking sick leave out of federal public sector collective agreements so that the employer could unilaterally modify that leave outside the bargaining process.

One of the key provisions of current public sector collective agreements relates to sick leave. It gives full-time employees 15 days of leave per year to be used in case of accident or illness.

The Conservatives' Bill C-59 also took away accumulated unused sick leave days and imposed a short-term disability plan on public service employees. To make matters worse, the Conservatives introduced a seven-day unpaid waiting period before employees would receive their short-term disability benefits.

This is unacceptable. The previous government had the nerve to claim that these measures would save $900 million, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

According to a 2014 report by the parliamentary budget officer:

...the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the CPA.

The quotation speaks for itself. It means that most employees who are on sick leave are not replaced, resulting in no incremental cost to departments.

The parliamentary budget officer confirmed that public service employees use sick days at about the same rate as private sector employees. An average of 11.52 days were used in the public sector, compared to 11.3 in the private sector. A difference of 0.2 days is pretty minor.

Division 20 of part 3 of Bill C-59 also authorized the Treasury Board of Canada to nullify terms and conditions in existing collective agreements. It gave the employer the authority to override many provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, including the statutory freeze provisions that maintain the status quo during the collective bargaining process.

Members may be surprised by what I am about to say. Under the provisions of Bill C-59, employees would be forced to choose between reporting for work even if they are sick and losing a percentage of the salary they need to survive.

Robyn Benson, the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, denounced these measures. According to PSAC, the sick leave plan for federal public servants is essential, and it must ensure that employees do not have to work when they are sick. That seems obvious to me, and I agree with PSAC.

I worked as a manager in various government and community organizations for 25 years. I managed a number of teams and a hundred or so employees. As a manager and as a member of Parliament, I believe that it is totally ineffective to make employees report for work when they are sick. It is even worse to cut employees’ sick days by more than half.

The second legislative measure of the Harper government addressed by Bill C-62 is former Bill C-4, in particular section 17, which radically changes the collective bargaining rules in the public service by giving the government full control over union rights, such as the right to strike and the right to arbitration. Bill C-4 takes away bargaining agents’ right to choose arbitration as a means of resolving collective bargaining disputes, making conciliation the default process. However, arbitration is a valid solution in situations where members want to avoid a strike, and the right to arbitration should therefore be maintained.

Section 17 of Bill C-4 also undermines the right to strike by making it illegal to strike if at least 80% of the positions in a bargaining unit provide essential services, as defined by the employer. Under Bill C-4, it is up to the government to designate which positions are essential, rather than working with the bargaining agent to negotiate an agreement on essential services.

This same section 17 infringed on workers rights in cases where the employer consents to arbitration by requiring adjudicators to give priority to Canada's financial situation in relation to its budgetary policies.

Discrimination complaints filed by public servants to the Canadian Human Rights Commission were simply erased. These measures are unacceptable.

That is why it is time to take action. This sets aside or amends changes that were made to four statutes during the last lost decade when the Conservative government violated union rights. I am referring to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Public Service Employment Act.

The NDP always made a point of opposing the former Conservative government's attempts to limit union rights, mainly the public sector workers' right to strike.

We are therefore happy to support the government's efforts to undo the Conservative Party's damage and make Canada's public sector labour code equitable once more. The NDP is also happy to support Bill C-62.

We do not support it blindly, however. My job as an opposition MP is to scrutinize the bill and identify elements of it that need fixing. By expressing opposing views, sharing knowledge, and engaging in dialogue, we will come up with ideas to refine this bill and make sure it does everything it is supposed to, and it certainly needs help on that front. That is why I will now take a critical look at the bill's weaknesses.

After all the back and forth on this, Canada's workers deserve an ironclad law that will level the playing field for everyone involved and restore the balance of power. Although Bill C-62 is progress, it is just the first step toward instituting all the measures we want to see.

We should never legislate easy solutions to the problems we face. We have to avoid that. The NDP fought very hard to have the government abolish the previous government's initiative that attacked provisions governing public servants' sick leave. Bill C-62 can do that by repealing Division 20 of former Bill C-59 on sick leave.

Why is the government concurrently working on a new health regime that has short-term disability provisions similar to those proposed by the Conservatives in the past? That is the first reason why Bill C-62 does not allay all of our concerns.

Other points have me wondering. The greatest weakness of Bill C-62 is that it does not reverse all the negative changes made by the former government to our labour legislation. While this bill seeks to restore the rights C-62 stripped from public sector unions under Stephen Harper's tenure, Bill C-62 falls short of addressing some elements of Bills C-4 and C-59. I am referring to Division 5 of Part 3 of Bill C-4.

The Liberal government seems to be taking half-measures in an area where expectations are monumental. If we are to truly do away with the Harper government’s anti-labour legacy, Bill C-62 must do better, first by re-establishing the provisions of the Canada Labour Code respecting Canadians’ right to refuse dangerous work, such as changing the definition of “danger”, now limited in scope to situations of imminent threat.

We are also concerned about another point that Bill C-62 ignores: the removal of health and safety officers from the process of refusing dangerous work. As it stands now, the employer assesses the safety of the work, and the worker must appeal directly to the Minister of Labour. The minister can simply refuse to investigate if he or she deems that the matter is trivial or vexatious, or that the employee’s refusal is in bad faith. This measure implemented by the Harper government should be permanently struck down by Bill C-62.

Lastly, we believe that we should take this opportunity to re-establish a federal minimum wage and to reinstate the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act repealed by the Conservatives in 2013.

We also need to advance gender equality in the federal public service. That is why Bill C-62 should include a proactive federal legislative measure on pay equity in order to counter the effect of labour market forces on women’s wages.

The government claims that Bill C-62 demonstrates its commitment to fair collective bargaining for public servants. However, the exclusions to collective bargaining in Bill C-7 show that the Liberals have not always defended fair collective bargaining.

The government must commit to eliminating the exclusions in Bill C-7 in order to respect the right of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to meet and bargain collectively, just as public servants do.

That is why, in light of all the previous explanations, we deplore Bill C-62's lack of ambition. This lack of ambition restricts the scope of a bill that deserves more than what the Liberals are proposing.

Our disappointment appears to be shared by the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. She recently called on the government to do more than simply introduce a bill to correct the Conservative bills aimed at restricting public servants’ bargaining rights.

It is imperative that we continue to work on this bill. We must go much further and take advantage of its full potential. I explained which measures should be retained, which measures need to be taken much further, and which measures should be eliminated. The Liberal government really needs to repeal all of the Conservative measures.

This morning, I heard the President of the Treasury Board mention some lofty principles. If the Liberals wish to follow these principles, they must repeal all of the anti-labour measures the Conservatives introduced. We must take advantage of this opportunity.

We know that this bill was introduced in the fall of 2016, which was quite some time ago. People have very high expectations. The federal public service is dedicated to serving Canadians. We just marked the second anniversary of the problems with the Phoenix pay system. We need to take Bill C-62 as far as we can in order to resolve these problems that we have been grappling with for far too long.

We have amendments to propose. I outlined the measures that we want to implement. I hope that we will all be able to work together so that, when Bill C-62 passes, we can all proudly say that we accomplished our mission and that we implemented proper working conditions for federal public servants, working conditions in which they can feel secure. I hope that we can allay the concerns related to the Phoenix pay system and that public servants will have working conditions that will allow them to do their jobs properly.

We know that front-line work is demanding. That is what everyday life is like in some departments. Those employees listen to Canadians who are in difficult situations and who come to them for help or to get the their file sorted out. We are therefore asking federal public servants to do very demanding work.

Here, we pass bills. The next step is to implement them. We need to make sure that public servants feel that we parliamentarians here in the House are collaborating to provide them with the working conditions they need to do their job properly.

Budgetary considerations have been mentioned. All elected officials, at all levels of government, always need to ensure their decisions stay within budget. As I explained, a number of measures cost nothing. As we know, employees who are off sick are not even replaced, so their sick leave does not cost us anything.

For this reason, we are eager to collaborate in perfecting and completing this bill, which will officially reverse the anti-union measures of the past.

Bills C-5 and C-34 have been languishing on the Order Paper since they were tabled by this government. We hope that merging them with Bill C-62 is a sign that the government is finally ready to move forward.

That is why I want to make an appeal, an appeal to set partisanship aside and implement an infallible law that genuinely protects the rights of all workers, an appeal for teamwork and collaboration to make sure the proposed amendments I have presented here can be considered and approved.

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

I'm going to ask Yaprak to intervene. One thing is that Bill C-7 is quite recent, so there are going to be a lot of changes in the coming months and even years as this shift occurs.

Yaprak might have some thoughts on this.

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

Bill C-7 was groundbreaking in that it provided for the first time an opportunity for the RCMP to unionize, and of course, whether it's in the RCMP or any department or agency of the Government of Canada, we want to see respectful, progressive labour relations. Bill C-7, as I said, is a significant step forward, and it will most definitely have an impact, as you're now building a labour management regime wherein there will be union representation.

I believe that in the last two years we've made progress writ large in terms of our relations with the public sector unions as a government and—

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

Thank you very much,

Thanks to Mr. McCauley.

I want to come back to some issues related to the RCMP, and thank you again for your commitment not to transfer civilian members of the RCMP on to Phoenix before the system has been fixed.

In the estimates, and we touched on this briefly, there is money, just under $400,000, for the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada to support the implementation of a new labour relations regime within the RCMP. Of course, that funding is for what we could call back-end issues, or it's funding for when things go wrong and they need to be resolved between management and labour.

I wonder if you could comment on the efficiency.... I don't see money allocated to help train RCMP management on how to successfully implement a new labour relations regime in terms of learning how to deal with a union in the workplace and trying to have good labour relations. I wonder if some of the money that's allocated here for the back-end problems perhaps wouldn't need to be spent if RCMP management had training from outside the organization on how to do labour relations right.

This is an evaluative judgment that I don't particularly expect you to endorse, but my experience through the process on Bill C-7 and seeing the attitude of RCMP management in terms of how they treated RCMP members trying to organize was that this is not a management that understands what it means to have a union in the workplace, and they are not really ready to work constructively with a union. It seems to me that some upfront investment in training would be appropriate and would hopefully mean that we would see fewer line items in estimates related to resolving disputes.

I wonder if you could comment on the lack of money for that upfront bit.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Do you expect any other expenses following the outcome of ongoing discussions regarding the implementation of Bill C-7, and in light of what is going on currently, that is to say the fact that members wish to unionize?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Peter Hill is the associate vice-president in the programs branch of CBSA.

Anne Kelly is the senior deputy commissioner for the Correctional Service of Canada.

I am happy to have this opportunity to speak to you this morning on supplementary estimates (B). We are requesting these authorizations in order to continue to ensure the safety of Canadians, while protecting our rights and freedoms.

Before I get into the estimates, though, Mr. Chair, I want to take a moment to recognize that we are meeting this morning only a few days after Constable John Davidson of the Abbotsford Police Department was shot and killed in the line of duty.

In our jobs, we are privileged to meet police and other public safety officers and to deepen our appreciation of the difficult, dangerous, and absolutely indispensable work they do. We certainly share in the pain and in the profound sense of loss when an officer falls in the line of duty. I know that all of you join me in offering our sincere condolences to Constable Davidson's family and friends, to Chief Rich and his colleagues on the police force, and to the entire community at Abbotsford.

Now we turn to the matter at hand. The public safety portfolio in these estimates is requesting adjustments resulting in a net increase in authorities of $223 million. As always, our objective is to keep Canadians safe, while at the same time safeguarding rights and freedoms. In my remarks this morning, I will briefly explain how the authorities we are seeking in these supplementary estimates would do that.

The largest chunk of this funding will go to the RCMP, including over $60 million to implement the salary increases announced in April, which will be paid retroactively going back to January 1, 2015. We are also seeking over $28 million in integrity funding. I was pleased to note that the recent economic update also included an additional $100 million to support RCMP operations and the RCMP External Review Committee. This funding reflects some of the remedial measures that we took after the RCMP underwent over half a billion dollars in cuts between 2011 and 2015, to ensure RCMP members have the resources and support they need to keep doing their job of protecting communities and the country.

As you know, we've also passed Bill C-7, to bring the RCMP labour relations regime into compliance with the charter and with a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. That will, for the first time ever, give members of the force the right to bargain collectively. That legislation received royal assent in June, and the process of certifying a bargaining agent is now under way.

As all members will know, two studies on harassment in the force were completed earlier this year, one by the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission and the other by former Auditor General Sheila Fraser. Both of these reports are informing our way forward as we continue working to ensure the RCMP provides its employees with a safe and healthy workplace. Of course, that objective applies to every department and agency of the Government of Canada.

We've stepped up recruiting, with the RCMP training academy in Regina graduating 938 new officers in the fiscal year 2016-17. That's almost triple the number from 2013-14. The current year should generate another 1,100 new graduates, and then more than 1,200 in 2018-19. I've had the privilege of attending several graduation ceremonies at Depot, and welcoming Canada's newest Mounties to an organization with a long and proud history. You can be assured that I will keep doing everything I can to make sure that the RCMP's best days lie ahead of it, despite its fantastic history.

The RCMP is also included among the recipients of the $274 million over five years that we announced this past summer to support law enforcement bodies in their efforts to combat impaired driving.

In these estimates, Public Safety Canada, CBSA, and the RCMP are seeking a combined total of $20.1 million for the implementation of an initiative to build capacity to address drug-impaired driving.

We also recognize the importance of public education. That's why my department is seeking an additional $2.5 million to raise awareness about the risks and consequences of drug-impaired driving. This funding will support an upcoming advertising campaign to discourage Canadians, especially young and new drivers, from driving after using drugs. It will also build on a social media campaign we ran last March targeting young drivers and their parents.

Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is the leading criminal cause of death and injury in Canada. This funding and the important new legislative measures in Bill C-46 are important parts of our efforts to prevent, detect, and punish impaired driving and to keep our roads safe.

Some $9.2 million is also being sought for the Department of Public Safety, the RCMP, and CBSA related to the new cannabis framework to be implemented next year. These include measures to ensure that organized crime is kept effectively out of the new legal system for dealing with cannabis and to beef up interdiction at the border.

Mr. Chair, we are also seeking authorities related to some of the extreme weather events Canadians have experienced this year. Severe flooding caused a great deal of damage to homes and communities in several provinces across Canada this past spring, particularly in Quebec and Ontario. As well, this summer's wildfire season in British Columbia was, as we know, one of the worst in recent memory. We are deeply grateful to the brave firefighters and other first responders who answered the call, as they always do, as well as the many ordinary—or, rather, extraordinary—Canadians who filled sandbags, volunteered at shelters, and generally stepped up to help friends, neighbours, and strangers in need.

When a natural disaster strikes, one of our key partners is always the Canadian Red Cross. The organization contributed greatly to a number of relief activities this year, including distributing immediate financial assistance to evacuees. We are pleased to contribute to the Red Cross, including $1 million to support its flood relief efforts across Canada this past spring and $38.6 million to support its relief efforts related to the B.C. wildfires. These transfers account for a portion of the total authorities we're requesting today.

Finally, Mr. Chair, the Correctional Service of Canada is requesting $12 million to address the needs of vulnerable offenders in the federal corrections system. Over 70% of male offenders and almost 80% of female offenders meet the criteria for some type of mental disorder, including substance abuse and misuse. To ensure that they receive proper care, you will recall, budget 2017 proposed investing $57.8 million over five years, starting this fiscal year, and then $13.6 million per year thereafter. These funds are for the expansion of mental health care supports in federal correctional facilities and follow up very specifically on advice we have received over time from the correctional investigator. CSC's requests for additional funding in these estimates are part of upholding this important commitment.

We also included in the budget over $110 million to support the reintegration of previously incarcerated indigenous people and to advance restorative justice approaches, and we have introduced, as you know, Bill C-56 on administrative segregation.

As you can see, we are focused on ensuring that federal correctional institutions provide safe and secure environments conducive to inmate rehabilitation, staff safety, and the protection of the public.

Mr. Chair, it's a big portfolio with lots of detail. I'll leave the detail at that and look forward to the next period with some questions.

Thank you.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

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

Madam Speaker, the government takes its responsibility to keep Canadians safe and secure seriously, and that is reflected in Bill C-7.

As I mentioned, our government has made a huge step forward in restoring a culture of respect for and within the public service. We have rescinded some of the provisions the previous government put in place that were essentially an attack on collective bargaining and on unions. We have gone forward with collective agreements with 85% of public servants. We will continue to work on that until they are complete, and we will always respect our first responders and do our very best on their behalf.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this House to say a few words about Bill C-7.

I appreciate the acknowledgement of the member for Kootenay—Columbia that there were changes made to the original bill proposal and that some of the critical amendments put forward by the Senate were accepted and incorporated into the bill. I also want to acknowledge the member for his staunch defence and support of first responders, including security officers on the Hill who protect and defend members of Parliament every day in the very important part of our lives here as members of Parliament.

I am pleased to say that this government, which inherited a collective bargaining situation in which many outstanding agreements had not been signed, has completed 85% of the public servants' collective agreements, including the one for the RCMP. On March 9, the government introduced legislation to support the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service by providing them with a labour relations framework that gives them the respect they deserve.

Bill C-7, which received royal assent on June 19, was a great step forward. It is a labour relations regime that takes into account the special circumstances of the RCMP and respects it as Canada's national police force. The legislation takes into account the operational integrity of the RCMP as a police organization and ensures alignment with the labour relations regime that applies to federal public service employees. This legislation respects the 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision by providing RCMP members and reservists with the ability to pursue their interests through collective bargaining for the first time in Canada.

There was much consultation with regular members of the RCMP and with jurisdictions with RCMP police services agreements in crafting this legislation. I want to express my gratitude to all members of the House of Commons and the Senate who helped in the development of this bill. Bill C-7 gave us an important opportunity to further improve Canada's RCMP labour relations regime and to serve the men and women who benefit from it.

This is a new era in the history of the RCMP. Now the RCMP members and reservists have the same collective bargaining rights as other police forces in Canada.

Our national police force has a storied past in Canada. It deserves our respect, and with this bill, the RCMP also has a bright future ahead.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, much has changed since I asked my question about Bill C-7 last spring. The government accepted the Senate's amendments to the bill, and the legislation came into force last week.

However, the problems at the RCMP and at other federal law enforcement agencies across the country have not changed at all. In my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, at least two of our detachments are at 50% of their full complement. Many others are short-staffed and are working with outdated equipment.

Why is this so? It is because under the previous Conservative government and continuing with the current Liberal government, budget cuts have been aimed squarely at RCMP members on the ground. The Conservatives even increased the amount RCMP officers had to pay for their medical benefits.

In New Brunswick last week, we saw the RCMP itself convicted of failing to provide its members with the weapons and training needed when responding to an active shooter tragedy. That failure contributed to the loss of three officers, and resulted in other officers being injured.

The RCMP is losing members to provincial and municipal forces where they receive better pay, better equipment, and better treatment. It takes incredible commitment for any officer to stay with a force that cuts their benefits, and will not keep up with critical equipment and training needs or offer them the respect they so rightly deserve. I thank them for their commitment.

Until the passage of Bill C-7, the RCMP was the only police force in Canada not to be unionized, and even with the bill's passing, RCMP members will be forbidden from taking their grievances to the Public Service Labour Relations Board and from engaging in negotiating tactics such as strikes.

Sadly, the lack of respect paid to our RCMP officers is not an isolated situation. I spoke recently about our border security officers, who have been without a contract for more than three years and whom the government refuses to recognize as federal law enforcement officers. Canada's corrections officers have gone without a contract for almost four years. They were recently on Parliament Hill lobbying for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. The federal government, however, does not consider them to be first responders and will not require provinces to pay for their PTSD treatment where it is currently not offered.

Right here, a few feet from where we are sitting in the House of Commons, officers of the Parliamentary Protective Service, those women and men who work to protect us and our visitors, are once again protesting the government's refusal to negotiate a new contract with them in good faith.

Last spring, our parliamentary officers signed an agreement to back off on their quiet protests in exchange for fair negotiations. Oddly, that happened just in time for the Canada 150 celebration here on the Hill. However, the government now refuses to negotiate in good faith, and we are once again seeing these officers wearing green hats to protest their treatment.

There is a crisis in federal law enforcement, a crisis made by successive Conservative and Liberal governments who have refused to honour all those officers who put their lives on the line for us, every day. It is unacceptable to those officers. It is unacceptable to Canadians. I would hope that it is unacceptable to the members of the House and to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that, when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

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—Chapter No. 9.

Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act—Chapter No. 10.

Bill S-233, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (presentation and reporting requirements)—Chapter No. 11.

Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act—Chapter No. 12.

Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code—Chapter No. 13.

Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act—Chapter No. 14.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I appreciate that. I would like to stick with the Treasury Board and specifically its role as the employer of federal workers. I want to ask in particular about Bill C-7, which tries to give members of the RCMP the ability to unionize and bargain collectively.

Our Parliament passed that bill quite a long time ago, and indeed the Senate came back with amendments in June. I'm wondering why it took the government 11 months to come up with a response to those amendments.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7 now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise here once again to discuss Bill C-7, which would give RCMP members, at long last, the right to collective bargaining.

I spoke to this bill last spring when it was first put before us here, and I must admit disappointment has been expressed by others at how long the government took to bring this measure back to the House. The Supreme Court gave Parliament a year to create this legislation. That deadline was May 2016. The Senate sent its amendments to the bill in June 2016, but it has taken the government 11 months to come up with a response.

In that time, the morale in RCMP detachments across this country and certainly in my riding has declined significantly, and the delay has needlessly created significant legal uncertainty and confusion for the certification process.

The RCMP is one of the best-known police forces in the world, with their red serge at ceremonies and the musical ride. Many young men and women have joined the RCMP to be part of that proud tradition, but now many are increasingly disappointed with their position.

Morale is so low that some members are removing the yellow stripes from their pants in protest. The ribbons that some of us in the NDP caucus are wearing today were made out of those stripes by RCMP members.

As a member from British Columbia, I am grateful for the dedicated work of the RCMP in protecting citizens across most of our province and indeed across the country. I make regular visits to RCMP detachments in my riding. Usually I meet only the officer in charge of the detachment, but in the last few meetings I arrived to find almost all the members and civilian support staff as well waiting to meet me.

They are so concerned about deteriorating morale, understaffing, poor equipment, and other issues that they took the time to tell me in no uncertain terms that the situation had to change, and it had to change quickly. They were extremely frustrated with the government's foot-dragging on this issue. These members were speaking out in contravention of orders not to speak, even amongst themselves while on the job, about these serious issues. The only way that they were allowed to communicate with other members was through Facebook, since they could not speak at the office and they could not use work emails to discuss these issues.

What are they concerned about? To start with, they are concerned with the dramatic decline in pay that RCMP members receive for their work relative to the other forces in Canada. Only a few years ago, the RCMP was in the top three forces in Canada when it came to pay, and of course that was to be expected. RCMP members face difficulties that other police officers in Canada do not. They spend their early years on the force serving in small and often remote communities across the country. They are moved regularly, causing hardship within families and relationships.

In fact, their pay was calculated with the assumption that the rate put them in the top three forces in Canada. That is not the case today. Now the RCMP is 72nd out of 80 police forces across Canada in terms of pay rates. I have heard other numbers today, such as 54th or 78th. The number does not matter; they are at the bottom of the pile.

It is not only that. While the government refuses to act on a pay council report entitled “Fair Compensation for the RCMP” that recommended significant wage increases for members, the RCMP top brass were given $1.7 million in bonuses this year. Front-line members received nothing.

Unfair pay levels have an immediate and significant effect on everything else in the force. Members are leaving the RCMP in large numbers to take positions with other police forces. Why should they stay, when they could make 20% more with another force?

It is easy to see why so many members are leaving and why many detachments are chronically understaffed. In one of the biggest detachments in my riding, I heard that on a recent Friday night there were only three members on duty. One was a brand-new rookie and one was a 67-year-old retired member. It was just because other members did not want to work yet another weekend overtime shift. There were just not enough staff members to do the work required.

That said, I am encouraged that the government has more or less accepted the amendments put forward by the Senate that removed the exclusions on the issues that can be discussed in collective bargaining. The most important exclusions in the original bill were staffing, deployment, harassment, and discipline. What good is bargaining about pay if there are no discussions about work hours or staffing levels?

We asked in committee for the government to remove those exclusions, but we were voted down by the Liberals and Conservatives.

I have some concerns around the management rights section that replaces these exclusions. It is not clear those provisions are necessary and they risk obstructing the right of RCMP members to bargain solutions to significant problems in the workplace.

The RCMP members who I have—

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my NDP colleague across the aisle and the personal stories that she mentioned.

Bill C-7 and our response to both the House committee and the Senate amendments would give labour relations and collective bargaining a regime that would allow RCMP members to stand up for their rights and to address issues of workplace well-being and harassment which, as the member has pointed out, are so critically important. Our government listened to the Senate, listened to members of Parliament from all parties, and expanded the issues which are now available for collective bargaining.

Will the member support this important piece of legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

I want to extend more than anything my sincere thanks to members of the Nanaimo, Ladysmith, and Gabriola detachments of the RCMP for the work they do in the riding that I am honoured to serve. There are 159 sworn members of the RCMP who form the ranks in my riding, and they join 18,000 members across the country. As we talk today about Bill C-7, I am reminded that it does not only affect officers in my riding and across the country, but it also affects their spouses, grandparents, children, classmates, our entire Canadian community.

To remind us of what it is we are debating today, I have an email that was sent to me by Robyn Buchanan. She writes:

As you know members of the RCMP have waited a long time with lower than fair wages due to both conservative and liberal governments. This past weekend they are banding together by removing the yellow stripes from the side of their uniforms. This peaceful protest is to speak to the government and let them know that they are dissatisfied with safety issues and wage issues. Plainclothes members and members of the public are showing their support by wearing yellow ribbons. Often these ribbons are made from the very stripes that are removed from the uniform.... I can make you a ribbon myself, as my husband is an RCMP officer on Vancouver Island.

I am wearing one of those ribbons today, as are many members here in the House.

I also have an email dated April 4 fromDavid Buchanan who said:

The Treasury Board's stance is that as an RCMP member I am just another federal employee. I assure you we are not just average federal employees. I was one of the first police on the scene at the Nanaimo Mill Shooting. I ran towards the gunfire and not away. I also arrest countless impaired, unlicensed and dangerous drivers. I am not just another federal employee, I am a police officer. We should be compensated as police officers. I put my life on the line. RCMP members have the added stress of feeling undervalued and unsupported by our government. We are watching police officers falling to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder on a daily basis; yet we are considered “just another federal employee”.

I am just one police officer attempting to make things right for my other police brothers and sisters.

These fine men and women do dangerous work on our behalf. Collective bargaining 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 that respect. This 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, relocation, and sexual harassment, except for the RCMP. That is what the court ruled in 2015 and it ruled that it must change.

We appreciate that the bill in front of us today does include those elements, that workplace safety and sexual harassment issues be allowed to be collectively bargained. We heard that loud and clear from RCMP members over the last year and a half that they have been writing us letters.

The extent of sexual harassment in the force has been widely documented and widely covered in the media. What makes it especially troubling to me is that it was explicitly excluded from the first version of the government's bill, which we debated a year ago.

On workplace safety, rural officers have special concerns. I think in particular of the terrible tragedies in Mayerthorpe and Moncton, where there was a terrible loss of life of RCMP members. There remain 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.

A letter was sent to me by Thomas Trachsell, in which he said:

The RCMP has fallen so far behind almost every other police force in Canada in almost every area that we are literally on the verge of breaking. We are near the bottom of pay in Canadian police forces, our training opportunities now routinely lag far behind that of most other police forces, and our equipment is often years out of date or decades behind schedule being deployed.

If the government restricts us to negotiating pay and benefits alone, that may help us recruit more people, but it won't stop our members from dying because they are working alone in remote places without radio communications or proper backup because local managers creatively interpret backup policies or ignore them altogether.

It won't stop over-worked people from descending into depression, losing families and committing suicide. It won't stop abusive managers from bullying and intimidating the men and women that they supervise. It won't fix our broken promotion system. It won't promote any change in the imbalance of power between management and employees in the RCMP that has bred a culture of fear and distrust of management among many members, a culture which actively opposes innovation and creativity.

Tell the government that RCMP members deserve to be given the dignity of being free to bring all matters relevant to our working conditions to the bargaining table, a freedom that every other police force in Canada enjoys, so that we can begin to fix our own problems from within.

How did the government embrace this plea for support and this call to action? The government bill that we were debating a year ago excluded staffing, deployment, harassment, and discipline from collective bargaining. Most witnesses at the committee that studied Bill C-7 expressed great concern about what was left out of this collective bargaining agreement. In the New Democrats' view, this meant that the bill failed to live up to the court's direction, but the government members voted down our amendments at committee which would have brought those vital topics into collective bargaining and would have amended the bill at that time.

The government then shut down debate last May, a year ago, because it was so urgent that we move forward. Then the Senate did its work and did it quickly. It removed those exclusions from collective bargaining. It allowed those matters to be included in the legislation for the purposes of collective bargaining. It reported to the government in June 2016 and the government sat on those Senate changes for 11 months.

I still feel that if the government had taken the opposition's advice a year ago, it could have incorporated those amendments early and could have given RCMP members some satisfaction that they were being heard. I am glad that the government members are listening to the Senate's advice on this matter, but still the government only told us this five days ago, and stakeholders did not hear before then, and it is shutting down debate tonight. I believe I am the second-last speaker. We have had closure on debate twice on a bill that is still not perfect. With respect to the Senate amendments the government is going to receive, we cannot tell entirely whether the government is going to accommodate all of the supports that our men and women on the front line need in order to be safe themselves while they keep our communities safe.

I will end by noting what Corporal Clover Johns from Nanaimo reminded me. He said that members of the House have what RCMP members do not now have. We hold the power to listen and to voice their concerns when they were not afforded an opportunity to do so. We have the power to enact just laws that enhance the national police force, to treat its members fairly, and to 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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to 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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That is okay, Madam Speaker. I have what people call selective hearing, so I am okay with heckling.

I want to emphasize that the discussion on the secret ballot was better served during the debate over Bill C-4. That bill put the discretion of the secret ballot or a card check process for certification back with the labour board. The board will ensure that the interests of RCMP members are reflected in the choice made. Why is member after member from the Conservative Party insisting on limiting that choice?

In fact, as a government, it is important we promote, encourage and put into place a uniform approach to labour relations. That makes sense. One group should not be different than another group, but the Conservative members consistently demonstrate they do not understand that principle. Why do they not understand the value of having a uniform approach on union certification across the public sector? I anxiously await an answer from any one of my Conservative colleagues.

I started by speaking to the issue of time allocation. I was here during questions and answers with regard to time allocation. I made the suggestion that when I was in opposition, it did not take very much for any group of 12 members of Parliament to in essence tie up legislation for quite a long period of time. If they are creative, it does not take much for 12, let alone 20, 30, or 40 members to do that. In fact, I remember sitting in the opposition benches when I indicated we needed a responsible opposition to assist in passing legislation, and Hansard is wonderful because we can find the quotes. We do not pat ourselves on the back because we can hold up legislation. Any opposition can do that.

What is the purpose of what the Conservatives are attempting to do here? They have made their position very clear. They do not like unions and their mission is to continue to delay indefinitely. They will argue that every member not only should be entitled once but twice, possibly even three or four times, to speak to the legislation because they do not want the legislation to pass. Therefore, when the Conservatives say that the government has put in time allocation, the first thing I would remind them is that Stephen Harper used it over 100 times. Even when the Harper government brought in time allocation, I often said that at times I felt sorry for the government. I recognized that one opposition party would talk about anything and everything, and that could frustrate the system.

When we bring in legislation, I respect the fact that we want to ensure there is an adequate amount of time for debate on issues. I like to consider myself a parliamentarian first and foremost in being able to contribute to debate and ensure there is, at the very least, an appropriate amount of time. On the issue of labour and labour relations and the whole certification, there have been many hours of debate inside this wonderful, beautiful chamber, inside our committee rooms, in the other place, not only in the last 18 months, under this government, but in the last couple of years of the Stephen Harper government. No one is saying anything surprising or shocking on the issue. It is a lot of rehashing of what has been said already.

The Prime Minister has been very clear in recognizing that if a standing committee comes up with ideas that can improve on the legislation and those improvements can be incorporated into the legislation, the government is open to that. That same principle also applies for the the Senate of Canada.

I am pleased to reinforce that once again we have another piece of legislation in which the government has recognized some changes to it. That is a strong and positive thing.

However, let us not kid ourselves. The government House leader tries to fulfill her responsibility in getting the legislation through the House. Without time allocation or the goodwill of opposition members, it is virtually impossible to do that unless members are prepared to see the legislation pass in an appropriate time.

We have a limited amount of time for debate. Mid-June is coming really quickly and there is so much more we want to debate. There are oppositions motions to debate, and I always find them interesting. Even in opposition, there are limitations in passing things. A number of Conservatives, and even some New Democrats, ask about time allocation. That is the essence of why we have it today.

The government has listened to members of the Senate and members of the House on other aspects of the legislation and has allowed changes to Bill C-7, for example, more issues can now be collectively bargained, such as harassment issues. That was expanded upon because the government listened to members of House and Senate.

The bill provides an appropriate labour regime for our RCMP members to stand up for their rights. We wanted to achieve that, not only because of the direction given by the Supreme Court of Canada but because it was important to recognize that other law enforcement agencies were unionized, and things continue on relatively positively.

If we take a look at the men and women in the RCMP, who serve as officers or are in our reserves, and the incredible work they do, not only in Canada but abroad, I cannot understand why someone would oppose affording our law enforcement agency the opportunity to organize. That is a strong positive. We can reinforce that positive message by passing this legislation. I would encourage members, particularly in the Conservative Party, to send that positive message by voting in favour of the legislation.

It is important to recognize that the Senate offered five key amendments, and consequential amendments. Some of the amendments have been accepted by the government and others have not. However, the department has been very thorough in reviewing all the suggestions from the other House.

Some concerns have been raised by the New Democrats with respect to Bill C-7. Our response to the Senate amendments gives labour relations and collective bargaining regimes to allow our RCMP members to stand up for their rights.

We listened to the Senate and the members of this House by expanding the issues I pointed out earlier dealing with bargaining.

The idea that RCMP members can only collectively bargain pay and benefits is just not correct. That is an impression my friends in the New Democratic Party are trying to give out, and we know that it is not correct. They can collectively bargain a host of different issues, such as the terms and conditions for grievances and procedures for classification and workforce adjustments.

They can also bargain on issues such as harassment, something that is very topical. When we sat in opposition, one of my colleagues from Toronto often talked about harassment that was taking place and the desire to see something happen on that issue. I am glad it is being incorporated. I am sure all members are happy to see that.

There are issues the Conservative Party raises. It is no surprise that the Conservative Party is against the collective bargaining rights, per se. As the government, the Conservatives brought in anti-labour bills, which I made reference to, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

Bill C-4 deals with the issue of mandatory secret ballots. Bill C-7 was initially silent on this issue, because there should be a uniform approach across the public service. That is something the Conservatives need to recognize.

I want to recognize the agreement reached between the RCMP and the Government of Canada on April 6, 2017, which saw a significant increase in pay for our RCMP, which I think will go a long way in demonstrating the respect we have for the fine work they do.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to share a few thoughts and words.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

They took very little action on the issue. We will get to the 11 months shortly, but the Conservative government did not take it seriously because they did not agree with the principle of unionization for the RCMP.

There was a great deal of research done to canvass the RCMP members and reserves in regard to what they wanted to see. During the consultations for the bill, it was very clear that a vast majority of RCMP officers clearly indicated to the government three things. The first was that a national union to represent them was something in which there was a great deal of interest. This is what the membership conveyed both directly and indirectly to the House. The second was that the union should be focused on representing RCMP members. Third, the right to binding arbitration was expressed throughout the many consultations.

Bill C-7 does all three of those. Our government has listened to the women and men of our RCMP and reserves. The legislation is all about that.

I have heard member after member talk about the time allocation. Members across the way know this is not the first time we have had the debate in the House. In fact, if we review what members across the way have been saying all day, it is about one issue, the secret ballot. They want to champion the secret ballot as the reason why they oppose the legislation itself.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on labour legislation. It not new for me, in that one of the very first speeches I gave as an elected official was during a fairly hot debate in the Manitoba legislature in 1988 on final offer selection. One of the issues back then that I picked up on relatively quickly was the importance of labour laws and how important it is for government to take an approach that promotes harmony within the workplace.

We have seen this government take this issue very seriously. It dates back to when the Prime Minister became the leader of the Liberal Party and we made the appointment of our labour critic. I often saw him stand in the House to criticize the government of the day for some of the anti-labour legislation that was being introduced through the back door, legislation that the government was quite eager to get behind and support. If I reflect on my early days of being a parliamentarian, what I witnessed while I was in opposition was an attitude that did a disservice to labour harmony in our country. We saw the Harper government try to use the politics of labour as a wedge issue, and it was very much anti-union. There is a substantial cost for that.

We need a national government to demonstrate leadership on that file, and that is why I was so glad that the Prime Minister took this issue very seriously as the leader of the third party of the House. He brought it into the election campaign, and we all know what happened in the last election. It is important to highlight that the first pieces of legislation we brought in were what we are debating today, Bill C-7 and Bill C-4. I choose to believe that Bill C-4 rectified some of the problems that Harper created.

Bill C-7 originates from a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada that indicated we should be providing a mechanism to allow our RCMP and reserves the opportunity to be associated as a labour group. That was an excellent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, but ultimately the Conservatives were quite content just to sit on the issue.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the question was very long, and I do not understand why the Liberals are hiding behind the past.

If the Liberals miss the Conservatives that much, they can just step down, and we know what will happen. People will put us back in power pretty quickly because the Liberal government has been around long enough for people to really miss us. At least, in my part of the country, they miss us a lot.

This is about the future. This is about the debate on Bill C-7. This is about a bill that will prevent RCMP members from choosing their union by secret ballot. This is about a card check system that will make it so that three RCMP members can ask a fourth if he wants to sign. Those circumstances give people no choice; they have to sign. That is called bullying, and that is what Bill C-7 was supposed to prevent.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Conservative member who just spoke. I would also like to tell him that it would be disrespectful towards RCMP members to vote against Bill C-7, because this is about creating working conditions that meet the needs and address the rights of RCMP members.

I would add that, in Bill C-43, which also pertained to labour relations and was introduced by the previous Conservative government, secret ballot voting was not mandatory. That was not all that long ago, and the decision was left to the discretion of the RCMP labour relations employment board.

Why was having all these choices the right thing for Bill C-43 but so unacceptable now? Why vote against Bill C-7 when it contains the conditions requested by RCMP members?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to once again congratulate my colleague on his very relevant speech regarding our position on 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, 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, currently before the House. This title may not mean much to most people, but I will be talking about the bill for the next few minutes.

I want to begin my speech by talking about respect, because once again, the government has decided to trample the rights and privileges of parliamentarians to speak freely in the House on a particular bill. This Liberal government has made a habit of shutting down the debate as quickly as possible when the debate is not to its liking.

When the government has nothing to gain by allowing the debate to continue, and it realizes that the arguments made by the opposition and the senators are relevant, it uses time allocation instead of allowing us to present our arguments and speak in the House. This is not the first time. In fact, it is the second time this week. The Leader of the Government said herself that the government would use time allocation even more often from now on to muzzle the opposition members.

Still, I heard some excellent speeches today. In fact, I want to acknowledge the excellent work done by the HouseLeader of the Official Opposition for as long as she has been here. She has given the official opposition a real voice and a real sense of direction. This is my first term as an MP, and I am proud of our leader. She is the one who has shown me how to be an effective opposition.

Back when the Liberals were in opposition, they probably subscribed to those same ideals about effective opposition. Without going so far as to say that power corrupts, I would suggest that, what with everything that has been happening, that might not be far off the mark. Those in power do not welcome opposing views.

There is no leadership without respect. If the government wants the respect of Canadians and parliamentarians, it should not assert its power; it should express its ideas and opinions to prove to other parliamentarians that it is on the right track.

Instead, this government opted for Motion No. 6. It chose a rather heavy-handed approach to changing the rules of the House. It has invoked closure a number of times, and considering how many times it has done so this week, I get the impression it is just getting started. We are likely to see more time allocation motions in the weeks to come. This shows a lack of respect for the House.

I will now talk about Bill C-7. The government promised real change on how the House operates and holds discussions. The Prime Minister appointed new senators from across Canada and, according to him, made the Senate more effective and “independent”.

Even if an appointment is made directly by the Prime Minister's Office, which is essentially independent, the Prime Minister has the final say and can choose the most like-minded candidates.

This is what the Prime Minister said about appointing certain senators:

Once appointed, these six exceptional candidates from Quebec, together with the other recent nominees, will be able to contribute to a Senate which is reflective of our great country.

This is what he said when he appointed senators from Ontario:

I am pleased today to put forward six exceptional candidates as new Senators representing Ontario. These men and women were selected using the Government’s new merit-based system, a real example of democracy in action....

When he appointed senators from elsewhere in Canada, he said:

It is a privilege to be putting forward the names of nine new senators to the Governor General who have been selected using a new merit-based and open process. It is part of our ongoing efforts to make the Senate more modern and independent and ensure that its members have the depth of knowledge and experience to best serve Canadians.

Those are the words that were used by the Prime Minister when he appointed senators to apparently make the Senate more independent.

What do we have before us today? We need to discuss the amendments proposed by these senators, who were appointed to take a second look at the legislative measures that we studied here. What is the government's reaction? It simply wants to cross out any of the recommendations of the Senate that it does not like. In the end, all of the work done by the Senate was for nothing. This is not the bill that was sent to the Senate. It did not come back the way the government wanted it to, so now the government must ensure that the changes proposed by the Senate are not incorporated into the new version of the bill. The bill will therefore be sent back to the Senate, and the Senate will be told that it did not do its job properly because what it came up with was not what the government had in mind. That is what is happening right now.

The government wants to send Bill C-7 back to the Senate after crossing out everything coherent about it, everything that made sure that Bill C-7 could give RCMP officers certain rights, including the right to unionize and to not be subject to intimidation during the union certification process. Since that was not part of the government's agenda, it decided to send the whole bill back to the Senate.

I mentioned respect. What respect is the government showing senators when it acts like this? What message is the government sending to the new senators who are being asked to spend hours and hours examining a bill? They did their work and met with people in committee and then sent the bill back with amendments. The government is telling them that they did not understand and that the bill is now not what it wants. The government is therefore going to return the bill to the Senate in the hopes that this time the Senate will understand what the government wants. That shows lack of respect for the Senate.

Let us come back to Bill C-7 in particular. I will be clear: in the case of this bill, the official opposition respects the Supreme Court decision concerning the possibility for RCMP officers to be unionized and to engage in collective bargaining. We must recognize that RCMP officers do excellent work and that all of us should appreciate their efforts. These men and women put their lives on the line every day and face all kinds of dangers to protect Canadians.

In its original form, Bill C-7 was a good response to the court's decision and the Senate amendments even improved the bill. However, once again, the government has decided to not respect the Senate and, consequently, not respect the right of RCMP officers to make their own decision about unionizing.

I was speaking with my colleague earlier. He was asking me whether we would we want to vote in private or by a show of hands if we were to vote, for example, for a change in leadership. If we were to lose, we certainly would not be in our leader's good books. It is the same thing for RCMP officers. This element is absolutely vital and we must keep this amendment.

Once again, the government has invoked closure. This is a lack of respect for the Senate's amendments and a recurring lack of respect for the House. For that reason, we will be voting against the proposal to return Bill C-7 to the Senate.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time today with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I am very pleased to be following the wonderful speeches made earlier today honouring our colleague, the Leader of the Opposition.

I am pleased to speak to the government's motion respecting amendments brought forward by the Senate to Bill C-7.

I want to acknowledge, in the same manner that my colleague from Brandon—Souris did, that the Conservative Party respects the Supreme Court's decision that RCMP officers are entitled to organize and bargain collectively. We recognize the great work of the men and women of the RCMP.

In much the same manner as Bill C-4, which is currently back before the House, the Senate has demonstrated a willingness to apply democratic principles to flawed legislation. I welcome this attention to democracy from the Senate and I am pleased to speak in favour of the Senate amendment regarding secret ballots, which the government has chosen to ignore in practice and attack in debate.

I have to openly wonder why it took the government 11 months to respond to amendments from the other place. The amendments from the Senate are substantially similar to the amendments to Bill C-7 last year when it was before committee. Last year, the government ignored the amendments as this legislation was deemed, in its words, too critical, so critical, in fact, that the government invoked time allocation to rush it through this House. Now, though, it appears that every bill is critical, of course, as time allocation seems to be used on every bill that the government bumbles through the House.

Upon receiving amendments from the Senate on this so-called critical bill, the government then promptly sat on the bill for almost an entire year. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board claims the government was “doing the thoughtful, careful analysis required to explore the whole portfolio of amendments made by the other place and to come forward with our response to have a robust regime for collective bargaining for the RCMP.”

I was personally shocked that she missed mentioning a whole-of-government approach and helping the middle class and those working to join it as an excuse for the delay. Let us rush the bill through because it is absolutely critical and then sit on it for an entire year because the government needs to carefully and thoughtfully consider the analysis. Why the government did not do that originally when drafting the bill or when similar suggestions were made in committee is beyond me.

Funnily enough, though, in spite of the government's odd stalling, Bill C-7 was, for the most part, a reasonable response to the Supreme Court's ruling on RCMP officers' rights to collectively bargain and organize. I cannot, however, endorse any bill that refuses to grant union members the right to vote in a secret ballot on whether to unionize.

I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board if she could tell us specifically why she thinks a card check system is better than a secret ballot system. In my question, I noted that secret ballots are used to elect members in this place, all the way down to simple acts like choosing high school student councils. On a question as important as whether or not workers want to join a union, why should those workers not be given the same priority?

In response, the parliamentary secretary criticized me for comparing the critical work of the RCMP to high school student councils. I do not take offence to such inane criticism from the member as it was evident she did not have a response to the uncomfortable reality that the government is endorsing anti-democratic principles.

In a follow-up question from my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge, the parliamentary secretary claimed that it is fairer to “restore the choice...for the Public Service Labour Relations Board to ensure whether the secret ballot or the card check system is in the interests of the members in a particular situation.” She also questioned why the RCMP should be “singled out for a more restrictive certification process than all the other groups that bargain with the government in labour relations.”

I have two responses to that. First, it is a poor justification for maintaining an anti-democratic system. It is an argument for keeping things the same because nothing else is changing. It is, frankly, a remarkably nonsensical excuse for denying democratic rights to workers and prospective union members. Second, we are not trying to single out the RCMP. We have consistently argued for the rights of union members and for the transparency of unions. Bill C-7 is one in a long line of examples where Conservatives have argued for greater transparency enshrined in law, which unions must follow.

Unions are like any employer organization. By virtue of their position, they necessarily have coercive power over their members and workers in a workplace. There is no logical reason why members opposite should argue that employers, through their scale and resources, possess undue power and influence over workers, but that unions, with their scale and resources, do not. Secret ballots balance out the power structure and ensure that workers come first.

The government has provided no indication that it recognizes the power imbalance and heavy entrenchment of unions, nor has it demonstrated any indication that it supports transparency in unions. On this side of the House, we believe in transparency, and we believe in legislation that strengthens the rights of individuals to make a choice free from intimidation.

When the parliamentary secretary asks why Conservatives want to single out the RCMP, the simple answer is that we will happily single out any organization for greater individual rights and greater transparency. RCMP members would be a good start, but all workers should know that this side of the House will stand up and defend their rights.

In a speech to the House last week, the member for Brandon—Souris reminded the House as follows:

...that in a briefing presented to the public safety committee, it was told that all previous certifications of public sector unions were done by secret ballot. By accepting this amendment, [the government] would actually treat the RCMP equally in terms of certification or decertification, as other public sector unions.

The parliamentary secretary is wrong for trying to justify anti-democratic legislation because current unions do not use secret ballots. She is wrong to argue that Conservatives are trying to single out the RCMP, because we have long argued for greater democracy and transparency. She is wrong to single out the RCMP because previous certifications of public sector unions were done by secret ballot, meaning that the Liberal government is actually singling out the RCMP for non-democratic treatment.

This is the second union-related bill that the Senate has sent back to the House with amendments calling for protection of the secret ballot certification process. It might be because the Senate has a point. Secret ballots are the only way to ensure union members can choose their future free from intimidation. The excuses put forward by the Liberal government do not justify denying democratic rights to workers.

I want to quote my friend and colleague the hon. member for Durham, who stated:

...my friends in the other parties are in Parliament not through a card check of their voters and their constituents but by their secret ballot vote, which is a fundamental tenet of our democracy.

It bothers me that we would suggest the federal government and the federal government's unionized work environment would have the same sort of intimidation stories you hear in relation to some private sector unionization efforts from years ago with unfair labour practices....

He is correct. The importance of the secret ballot cannot be understated, and must be upheld.

In researching some of the history of the secret ballot, I was reminded of the history of voting in the U.K., reading about the People's Charter written by the London Men's Working Association. As late as the mid-19th century, voting was still done by public show of hands at hustings. Given the prevalence of intimidation of voters, the demand for a secret ballot was one of the six key points of the People's Charter and the chartists' 1838 petition that “suffrage, to be exempt from the corruption of the wealthy and the violence of the powerful, must be secret”. The charter's points were not passed into law at that time. Unfortunately for all, the voting process was not made secret until the Ballot Act was passed in 1872. Voters in the U.K. fought for decades for secret ballots because it was the only method to protect their votes from intimidation. That the Liberal government is stuck in the mindset of the 19th century is quite disheartening.

In closing, I want to reiterate the comments made by my colleague from Brandon—Souris in quoting the hon. member for Carleton, who originally spoke on the legislation. He said that, in removing the right of a secret ballot, it was important to be very clear on what this meant. It meant that a union could take over a federally regulated workforce without there ever being a vote by a member from that workplace, and that thousands of employees from any number of federal employers could be forced to pay dues and be represented by a union for which they never had a chance to vote.

He noted that this would be particularly alarming when it related to the RCMP, an organization composed of members who put their lives on the line each and every day, in part to defend our democratic lifestyle. Therefore, it is great irony that members of the RCMP would be deprived of the most basic democratic right, which is the right to vote in secret on whether to certify a union, while they stand and defend our democratic rights.

I will reiterate my support for the Supreme Court's decision, and I firmly believe that RCMP members should be given the right of a secret ballot. I cannot support legislation that removes the ability of workers to choose their future, of their own volition and without fear of intimidation from anyone.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I certainly do not have the legal knowledge that he does, however, what really struck me with respect to Bill C-7 was the report that the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP released on May 15 concerning workplace harassment in the RCMP.

According to the report, the RCMP does not have an appropriate appeals policy. Unlike public service employees, who have the right to appeal a decision on a harassment complaint in accordance with the procedure established in their collective agreement, RCMP members still do not have access to an impartial and independent appeal body.

The motion being studied would reject a Senate amendment making all grievances subject to the Public Service Labour Relations Act rather than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

Does the member disagree with the commission's findings?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion presenting the government's proposed response to Bill C-7.

This bill takes a historic step in labour relations for the RCMP and in Canada. If the bill passes, RCMP members and reservists will for the first time have the same right to collective bargaining as other Canadians. RCMP members have a long tradition of exceptional dedication to their country. We just celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge and it is fitting that we point out that many valiant RCMP officers fought in that battle.

In fact, during the First World War, the Canadian government initially refused to send RCMP members overseas. However, a good number of them did not accept this decision. They decided to leave the North West Mounted Police in order to join the Canadian Expeditionary Force. During the Battle of Vimy Ridge, these members fought with the Canadian Armed Forces and many of them served with distinction.

A century later, RCMP members are just as courageous. Whether fighting drug trafficking on the ground or dealing with organized crime in the trenches, they are on the front line of public safety and we must ensure that they are working in a safe environment.

As far as harassment is concerned, I can assure my colleagues that the government is taking this issue very seriously. The government and the RCMP are determined to create a workplace free from harassment. We want to ensure that there are solid processes in place to deal with allegations effectively and safely.

I want to thank Ms. Fraser and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP for their work on the reports on harassment in the RCMP that were released this week. I also want to thank the courageous people who agreed to be interviewed for these reports. It is important that we all support the work of RCMP members and that we take all the appropriate measures to help them exercise their right to collective bargaining, which brings us to Bill C-7.

The Government of Canada is proposing this bill in response to an important ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Canada in January 2015. In that ruling, the Supreme Court found that the provisions that exclude members of the RCMP from the application of the Public Service Labour Staff Relations Act were unconstitutional because they prevented members from deciding on their own, like all other Canadians, whether they wanted to be represented by a bargaining agent.

I want to thank the Supreme Court of Canada for rendering that important decision, which has given us the opportunity to modernize the labour relations regime for RCMP members and reservists.

Bill C-7 gives members of the RCMP the freedom to choose, if they so desire, to unionize and bargain collectively through that union to make their needs known to their employer. It is the same freedom of choice enjoyed by all other police forces in Canada, which I think is important to point out.

The bill sets out to protect the rights of RCMP members while protecting Canadians and keeping them safe. The bill has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny by experts, stakeholders, and Senate and House of Commons committees, and we acted on their recommendations by making changes very early on in the process to things like how work-related injuries are handled.

In its response, the government accepted some of the amendments proposed by the Senate, amended some, and rejected others. Among other things, the government agreed to strike the RCMP-specific restrictions on bargaining and arbitral awards from Bill C-7 and to adopt a more targeted management rights clause.

These amendments will enable the employer and any future bargaining agent for RCMP members to hold good-faith discussions about issues that matter to RCMP members and reservists. This approach will preserve the commissioner's authority to manage the RCMP and ensure the operational integrity of the police service and the broader accountability of the RCMP for the safety of Canadians.

Certain limitations regarding issues that can be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards have been maintained. They are in line with existing provisions in the Public Service Labour Relations Act that apply to the rest of the federal public service.

The government is also rejecting the requirement regarding secret ballot voting to elect the bargaining agent who will represent RCMP members and reservists.

It is important to point out that Bill C-4 does not deny the RCMP the opportunity to hold this vote by secret ballot. All it does is allow the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to decide what is best based on the circumstances, either a secret ballot or a card check procedure.

In addition, if the bill does pass, the chair of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board must take into account the need to have at least two board members with knowledge of police organizations when making appointments.

Nor does the government want to expand the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to have it hear grievances on a broader range of issues relating to working conditions. This would be inconsistent with how the Public Service Labour Relations Act is applied to the rest of the public service and would create an overlap of appeal and grievance procedures that are established under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

Thanks to the government's proposed response, we have maintained the best bill possible because it takes into account countless hours of debate and healthy discussions. Accordingly, we must not delay any further.

As currently worded, the Public Service Labour Relations Act does not fully take into account the concerns and interests of RCMP members or their operational reality.

That is why we must move forward with Bill C-7 and implement a labour relations regime that provides RCMP members and reservists the freedom to choose to be represented by a bargaining agent and that takes into account the specific needs of a national police force.

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

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of the government's proposed response to the amendments to Bill C-7.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

Our proposed response to the amendments is in line with our stated position. In this response, we demonstrate our support for the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service. Who could be more deserving of such support than the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service who protect Canadians on so many fronts?

Members of the RCMP come to work every day with the goal of serving Canada and protecting Canadians. They are the people who protect the Governor General, the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown, visiting royalty and dignitaries, and diplomatic missions. They are the people who participate in international policing efforts, who safeguard the integrity of our borders, and provide counterterrorism and domestic security. They are the people who enforce our federal laws against commercial crime, counterfeiting, drug trafficking, and organized crime. They are the people who provide policing services under contract to eight provinces, the three territories, and more than 150 municipalities.

This bill, with amendments, helps support those who protect us, and these men and women who are recognized as a symbol of Canada around the world deserve our respect.

In addition, over the past few years, the RCMP has taken action to promote a respectful and healthy workplace. For example, a new code of conduct was implemented that specifically identifies harassment as a contravention of the code. Harassment in the workplace is an issue the Government of Canada takes very seriously. Discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, as well as bullying and harassment, is simply unacceptable.

What is more, in February 2016, the Minister of Public Safety asked the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the RCMP's policies and procedures on workplace harassment, and to evaluate the implementation of the recommendations the commission made in 2013.

In addition, in July 2016, the Minister of Public Safety announced the appointment of Sheila Fraser as a special adviser. Her role has been to provide advice and recommendations to the minister regarding the application of various policies and processes by the RCMP after the filing of legal proceedings against the organization in four specific cases. The recommendations by Ms. Fraser and the commission will be carefully reviewed, and will inform further work on improving the workplace of the RCMP. I would like to thank Ms. Fraser and Ian McPhail for their work, as well as the many individuals who agreed to be interviewed and who provided information that led to the findings and recommendations.

I should also mention that the RCMP has launched the informal conflict management program and a five-year mental health strategy for all employees.

The RCMP has made great strides with the initiatives, programs, and policies it has implemented. These steps are important not only to the RCMP but ultimately to Canadians who rely on them for integrity and effective policing. Our proposed response to the amendments increases the scope of what can be discussed and potentially included in a collective agreement to include issues such as harassment.

Let me turn to the specifics of the government's response to these amendments. As I just stated, our government accepts the amendment to remove the restrictions on what may be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards that are specific to the RCMP. This amendment ensures that the employer and any future RCMP member bargaining agent can engage in meaningful discussions in good faith on topics of importance to RCMP members and reservists. This amendment increases the scope of the issues that could be discussed at the bargaining table, issues that now include transfers and appraisals, and matters commonly associated with harassment, and general aspects of workplace wellness, such as the promotion of a respectful workplace and early conflict resolution.

It is in support of our national police service that we also accept, with some modifications, the amendment to include a management rights clause as part of the new labour relations regime for RCMP members and reservists. We have the utmost respect for the commissioner's authority to manage the RCMP and to ensure the operational integrity of the police service.

What is at stake here is the safety and security of Canadians. Keeping Canadians safe is a serious responsibility, and our government takes this responsibility seriously. We propose a more targeted management rights clause to focus on the authorities that the RCMP commissioner needs to ensure effective police operations. We do this because we also value the rights of the RCMP members and reservists, the dedicated men and women who risk their lives every day to keep Canadians safe.

With these two measures alone, I am confident that the motion before us today addresses the key concerns with the bill. We must preserve the restrictions on what can be negotiated that replicate those that have applied to the rest of the federal public service for over 40 years. We must also maintain the current mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. Expanding this mandate to include all matters pertaining to terms and conditions of employment would result in two different grievance processes that might lead to conflicting decisions.

Finally, the government cannot proceed with the amendment requiring a secret ballot vote to certify a bargaining agent to represent RCMP members and reservists. The secret ballot amendment is contrary to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

Bill C-4, which was introduced in the House of Commons on January 28, 2016, seeks to repeal legislation adopted in 2013 that sought to undermine unions' organizing efforts. Bill C-4 puts the discretion of certification with the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. Whether there will be a secret ballot or a card check, the board will make sure the members' interests are reflected in the choice made.

To conclude, as we celebrate Canada's 150 years, let us not forget one of Canada's most venerable police services, which is why our government urges all members to proudly support the proposed response to the amendments to Bill C-7.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here this afternoon to participate in the debate on Bill C-7, which is about labour relations within the RCMP.

For those watching at home, if they just joined this mini melodrama involving the bill, we are debating the Liberal government's response to amendments that were made in what we call the other place, in other words, the Canadian Senate.

To begin, I would like to say that Conservatives do accept the Supreme Court decision in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada case. It is clear that members of the RCMP, despite the force's paramilitary heritage, have the right to collectively bargain. The key, however, is making sure it is done right. That is where I believe that the Liberal government has failed the test. It is completely unacceptable that we are considering denying RCMP members a secret ballot vote on the decision of whether and how to unionize.

Why could this be problematic? Let us look at the report that was released yesterday from Ian McPhail, the chair of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. May I say that I have known Mr. McPhail in various capacities for over 40 years? I know that is hard to believe, but it is true, and he has done a great deal of service to the Canadian public, I should say at the outset. Mr. McPhail and his team reviewed numerous complaints of workplace harassment, intimidation, and bullying within the RCMP. He even found that “the RCMP lacks both the will and the capacity to make the changes necessary to address the problems that afflict its workplaces”.

Of course, this report is of great concern. We believe that the government must take action now to restore the confidence of front-line officers in the RCMP in their management, and to restore the confidence of Canadians in the RCMP as a federal organization. That means a number of things. It means making sure that RCMP pay is in line with the pay of other police forces. It also means working to ensure the appropriate recruitment and retention programs.

There are many ways in which we can work toward this goal. Many ideas have been put forward in this regard. For instance, we could explore separating the RCMP into two forces, one that deals with contract policing on the ground and one that deals with federal policing. We could explore new recruitment methods that allow experts in various fields to move laterally into similar positions in the RCMP without having to start at the bottom. We could explore new ways of allocating caseload so that the level of burnout is not nearly as high as it is currently.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us today does none of these things. What these amendments will do is to strip the approximately 28,000 members of the RCMP from the right to vote in secret on unionization. As I said before, it is completely unacceptable that rights that serve as the cornerstone of our democracy are being taken away from those who get up every day and go to work to keep us safe.

Why is the secret ballot so important? It is because that is the only guaranteed way to ensure there is no coercion, no intimidation, applied from any side of the argument. It would be to ensure that, no matter the rank and file or the seniority, all members of the RCMP are treated equally and fairly and, most of all, without any fear of repercussions on how they proceeded on collective bargaining.

A report was just tabled on the bullying culture that goes on in the RCMP, and yet the government is moving full steam ahead to deny the secret ballot, which of course guarantees further bullying in the future.

Many members in the House represent constituents who have been or who are currently serving members of the RCMP. In fact, there are currently RCMP members posted to Parliament Hill. They are part of our daily lives while the House is in session.

It seems passing strange to me that we would take action that would limit the rights of these people. There is no particular reason that the government would want to take away this democratic right of these members of the RCMP. It almost causes me to wonder whether there is some sort of ulterior motive, whether the government is using RCMP unionization as a bargaining chip with other public sector unions, which of course would be unfortunate.

Studies have shown that, when Canadians are given the right and the opportunity to choose by secret ballot whether to unionize, more often than not they choose to represent themselves. It seems that this old Liberal philosophy that, because workers may not make the same choice the government-knows-best Liberals in Ottawa want them to, they should not be entitled to make that choice at all.

We have seen this on many different files. From my perspective and the perspective of my colleagues, this is an intrinsic right that should be found in our legislation to make sure that the RCMP members have access to the secret ballot. This is not new law. This is not something that has come out of the mind of the caucus on the Conservative side that has no precedent. This is the precedent to allow the secret ballot on issues of importance that affect people's daily lives as employees, and certainly as people who wake up every morning to protect their community.

In closing, while there are some meritorious aspects of this bill—and let me explain again that we accept the Supreme Court decision with respect to the allowing of collective bargaining with the RCMP; we respect that decision; we accept that decision—this is a fatal flaw in the legislation that has been put forward to us, a fatal flaw in the legislation put forward by the Liberal government that denies a simple and well-accepted standard right, that of the secret ballot. This should not be allowed to happen.

I encourage my colleagues to vote against this piece of legislation. I encourage those on the other side to have a last-minute change of heart.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is actually disappointing that the member opposite strictly narrowed his remarks to the secret ballot issue. Is there nothing else important to the RCMP? Wait, in fact, that is not something that was asked for by the members themselves. In fact, the discussion on the secret ballot is well served in the debate on Bill C-4. That bill would put the discretion as to the certification methodology into the hands of the labour board.

How will the member explain to RCMP members in his riding that all the benefits of collective bargaining they would be acquiring through Bill C-7 are being rejected by his no vote because of a matter that is actually being handled under Bill C-4, different legislation?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have tremendous respect for the RCMP and appreciate and admire its work. We do not question the wisdom of the Supreme Court when it ruled that the current labour regime for the RCMP needs reform to comply with RCMP members' section 2 charter rights, which is why we supported the bill at second reading when it was first introduced.

What we disagree with is the disregard for democratic governance Bill C-7 contained when passed at third reading. We also disagree with the government's choice to reject important amendments to Bill C-7 wisely passed by the Senate.

This bill would enable RCMP members to unionize for the purpose of collective bargaining if they see fit to do so. This bill is not about whether the RCMP should or should not unionize, and I take no position on that question. Most of this bill is agreeable, but it does contain one pitfall.

As the official opposition's deputy critic for Treasury Board, my opposition to the bill, as passed at third reading, and my support for the amended version, which the Senate has returned to the House of Commons, arises from concern about the working environment it would create for members of the RCMP if passed without amendment.

Bill C-7 would not require a secret ballot to certify or decertify a union to represent RCMP members in labour negotiations. My fellow Conservatives and I cannot support the bill unless the issue is corrected.

I supported the bill at second reading, as did my Conservative colleagues, for one purpose. We wanted to send it to committee, hoping that the majority of members would accept sensible amendments to protect the RCMP members' right to privacy as well as their freedom of association. Conservative members argued that any decision to certify or decertify a union to represent RCMP members must include a secret ballot to protect members from undue pressure or reprisal. I will return to that point in a moment.

The Liberals rejected this amendment at committee and returned the bill for third reading, and now the Senate has sent it back to the House with amendments. Two of these amendments would require a secret ballot vote for certification.

The motion before us today states that the government:

respectfully disagrees with amendments 2 and 4(a) because the government has introduced legislation to repeal secret ballot provisions for other public servants...;

The motion also disagrees with other amendments the Senate made in recognition of the RCMP's unique structure and circumstances, which would require modifications to existing labour laws.

I am going to focus my remarks on the amendments on secret ballots and let other members speak to the merits of the other amendments.

Canadians should never feel unduly pressured when exercising their democratic rights as citizens of a free country. None of us should worry that third parties will keep track of our voting choice or seek to reward or punish as a result. As members of Parliament, we should know this well. We were all elected by secret ballot. Voters took their ballots behind a privacy screen, filled them in, alone with their conscience, folded them so no one could see their selection, and put the ballot in the box.

It is not too difficult to imagine how different Canada would be if political organizers, neighbours, ethnic or religious community leaders, employers, union leaders, friends, or even family members hovered over a voter's shoulder when voting in an election.

As my friend, the member for Carleton, mentioned on March 22, 2016, the rate of success for unionization drives appears demonstrably higher with a card check system alone than with a secret ballot, as workers who would prefer not to unionize appear to give in to pressure to sign petitions that would not be present under a secret ballot.

When members of Parliament selected Speakers of this House, they did so by secret ballot, in part to shield the Speaker from any appearance of partiality and to remove any doubt Canadians might have when the Speaker rules on any issue regarding a particular member.

Protecting individuals from undue pressure, recrimination, and reprisal should apply to Canada's national police force even more so than to parliamentarians, and certainly more so than at other workplaces.

Decisions to certify or decertify unions or associations significantly affect workplaces. How one votes or how one chooses can determine the course of many relationships if the choice is known.

In a hierarchical organization like the RCMP, which is modelled as a paramilitary force, with a clear chain of command, trust and confidence between ranks is even more important than in other workplaces. Superiors must know that their subordinates will dutifully follow orders. Subordinates must know that their superiors will exercise good judgment and not put them in harm's way without cause. Trust and undivided loyalty to the force is essential to police morale and the safety of its workers.

A card check system for union certification, in which everyone knows who signed the petition, creates rifts within the hierarchy. Such divisions have serious repercussions, especially for police morale. Secret ballots avoid these risks by protecting all members' privacy. Unless members discuss their positions with others or disclose how they voted, no one can be certain what a given member has chosen.

Secret ballots also better fulfill the spirit of the Supreme Court's case that gave rise to Bill C-7. Among other points, the court emphasized the need for meaningful representation, choice, and independence from management. A secret ballot enables meaningful representation by allowing workers to select the union they believe will best protect their interests. It shields them from undue pressure to vote for whoever pushes the hardest.

As my colleague from Carleton discussed when Bill C-7 came up at second reading, the bill gets it right in requiring any union representing the RCMP to do so as its primary mandate. Such a union could not be affiliated with another bargaining agent or association with a different primary purpose, and it could not be certified to represent any other group of employees.

Since the association would be composed of RCMP members representing their colleagues, secrecy at the ballot box would be essential to avoid resentment in the ranks if the association failed and needed to be decertified and reconstituted.

Secret ballots facilitate individual choice as the basis for consent to corporate decisions. They also facilitate representation independent from management by ensuring that members can freely reject a proposed representative if they consider the person to be too close to management.

I understand the reasons behind the government's rejection of amendments 2 and 4(a). I simply disagree. The rule of law demands that laws be consistent and treat similar things in a similar fashion. Since the Liberals are stripping other workers of secret ballot protection via Bill C-4, they say that it is therefore consistent for Bill C-7 to reject the secret ballot requirement for the RCMP.

The Liberals' decision today may be consistent, but it is wrong. They are wrong on Bill C-4, and the reasons they are wrong on Bill C-4 are amplified in Bill C-7 because of the very nature of the RCMP.

Instead of seeking to be consistent by refusing to extend secret ballot protection to the RCMP while repealing secret ballot provisions for everyone else, the government should do exactly the opposite. It should restore secret ballot protection for all federal workers and agree to amendments 2 and 4(a) to extend it to the RCMP.

If the Liberals value consistency, they should not argue that secret ballots for workers are somehow undemocratic. Each of them was democratically elected by secret ballot. Instead, they should acknowledge that secret ballots to certify unions are both democratic and consistent with secret ballots to select union leaders. They should join British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, which all require secret ballots for certification decisions. They should lead the way in having a consistent standard for workers across provincial and federal jurisdictions.

I conclude by encouraging all my colleagues in this House to protect the democratic rights of RCMP members by voting against today's motion and insisting that the government adopt the amendments from the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to offer my support to the government's motion regarding Bill C-7, a bill that provides a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists.

Since its beginning in 1873, when Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald introduced in this very House the act establishing the North-West Mounted Police, the RCMP has been an integral part of Canada's development.

As my talented and tireless legislative assistant, Adrian Zita-Bennett, advises me, we need only read our history books. When it came to bringing law and order to the Northwest Territories, the RCMP was ready and willing with its march west in 1894.

During the Klondike Gold Rush, the RCMP rose to the challenge of policing the stampede of people looking to get rich, and when it came to being the first ship to completely circumnavigate North America, the RCMP schooner St. Roch claimed that honour.

In World War I and World War II, the RCMP played vital roles, but despite their long and storied contribution to Canada, these members did not have full freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining. However, that has changed. The Supreme Court has removed the barriers that RCMP members face in exercising this right.

Bill C-7 provides the appropriate framework of labour laws that would govern the RCMP and ensures that RCMP members and reservists can be represented and bargain collectively, like other police services in Canada.

Bill C-7 has several key elements that reflect the clear preferences expressed by RCMP members during the consultations that occurred in the summer of 2015. Specifically, members indicated that they wanted a labour relations framework that provided for a single national bargaining unit, a union that is primarily focused on representing RCMP members, and the recourse to binding arbitration if a collective agreement could not be negotiated.

Bill C-7 creates this framework. It would do this by amending both the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to create a new labour relations regime for RCMP members and for reservists.

I rise today to offer my support to the government's response to the amendments of the Senate.

To begin, the government's motion accepts the removal of all restrictions on what may be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards that are specific to the RCMP. This includes matters such as harassment, transfers and appointments, and appraisals of RCMP members.

Harassment in the workplace is an issue that the Government of Canada takes very seriously. Discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, bullying, and harassment are flatly unacceptable. I believe quite strongly that this one concession, in and of itself, addresses the chief criticism of the bill.

The government's motion also accepts the management rights clause adopted by the Senate and proposes targeting it to focus on protecting the authorities that the RCMP commissioner needs to ensure effective police operations. This also goes a long way to meeting the concerns raised by the Senate.

The government's motion proposes retaining the restrictions that replicate those applying to other areas of the federal public service, such as restrictions preventing pensions from being bargained. It does not agree with the requirement for a mandatory secret ballot vote as the only option for the certification of a bargaining agent to represent RCMP members and reservists. Our government believes that there should be choice between secret ballots and a card check system. The issue of secret ballots was not an issue specifically related to addressing the Supreme Court's decision. Moreover, an organization wanting to represent RCMP members should not be subjected to certification processes different from those of other organizations under federal labour relations legislation.

Bill C-4 reflects the principles of fairness and balance, and also gives proper recognition to the role of bargaining agents.

Finally, the government proposes not proceeding with expanding the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to hear grievances on a wider range of matters, including many that are outside of a collective agreement. This would be inconsistent with the application of the Public Service Labour Relations Act to the rest of the federal public service, and it would create overlap with the appeal and grievance processes established under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

I believe that we now have the best possible legislation, given all the competing interests that must be accommodated. It is therefore important that we act now to put in place a new labour relations framework to minimize disruption for members, reservists, and RCMP management.

There is currently an overlap between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 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, which would make it difficult for the RCMP to maintain a cohesive national approach to labour relations. Also, there would be more uncertainty among RCMP members about their collective bargaining rights.

Bill C-7 would effectively provide RCMP members and reservists with a process that ensures independence and freedom of choice in labour relations matters. The bill would also recognize the specific requirements of a national police service and the unique attributes of the RCMP as set out in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. It would balance these with the need for consistency with the broader public service labour relations regime of which it is a part.

The government has taken important steps to ensure that workers can organize freely and that unions and employers can bargain collectively and in good faith. Bill C-7 is one part of that, and it honours the right of the RCMP members and reservists to freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining.

The time for talk is over. Now is the time to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due. I for one am proud to vote for this motion, which does just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that the management rights clause would be consistent with the labour relations approach in the rest of the public service. She specified that means if there were something that management believed is contrary to the effectiveness of police operations, if it were to be bargained, it would then go to the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to determine whether it would be in or out of the scope of the bargaining.

The NDP member who spoke previously implied that these management rights could be akin to reinstating the original exclusions, which would put a lot more power as to what to negotiate or not into the hands of the RCMP commissioner. However, we heard in the member's speech that it is actually the PSLREB that would determine whether something was in or out of the scope of bargaining.

I would ask the member to comment on whether this new management rights clause in what is hopefully the final version of Bill C-7 actually provides a neutral party determining what is in or out of the scope of bargaining.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to 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.

Resuming Debate

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of the government's proposed response to amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7. I applaud this bill and the process that has led to where we are today. It is clear that the government and members of the Senate both agree that we need to support regular RCMP members and reservists by creating a labour relations regime that promotes their right to collective bargaining.

Who could be more deserving of such support than the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service? These heroic men and women combat organized crime and defend our country against terrorists. They guard us from those who deal in illicit drugs and those who commit economic crimes. They provide contract policing services in eight provinces and three territories. This is by no means an exhaustive list of what these brave individuals do to protect Canadians. These men and women, recognized as a symbol of Canada around the world, deserve our respect.

The motion before us today would give members the respect they are due while addressing the key concerns of the Senate.

The first way the motion does that is by removing the RCMP-specific restrictions on what may be included in collective bargaining and arbitral awards.

Second, it would implement a more targeted management rights clause, which focuses on the authorities that the RCMP commissioner needs to ensure effective policing operations.

Together, these two amendments would broaden the scope of what can be debated and included in collective bargaining and constitute an effective response to the main criticisms regarding Bill C-7.

These amendments would ensure the employer and any future RCMP member bargaining agent could engage meaningfully in discussions in good faith on subjects of importance to RCMP members and reservists.

Allow me to provide a few examples of subject matter that could be included in a collective agreement or an arbitral award: first, matters commonly associated with harassment and workplace wellness, including, for example, the promotion of a respectful workplace, early conflict resolution, and workplace remediation; second, general aspects associated with the appointment and appraisals of RCMP members; third, criteria and timing for conducting the appraisals of RCMP members; and fourth, measures to mitigate the impact of discharges and demotions of RCMP members, including workforce adjustment provisions.

Clearly, the government has listened to the concerns raised and has expanded on what may be included in a collective agreement or an arbitral award. As is the practice for other negotiations in the public service, a wide range of other matters can be bargained and included in a collective agreement or an arbitral award. These include rates of pay, hours of work, and leave provisions, such as, designated paid holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, and parental leave.

I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on the management rights clause related to the RCMP commissioner's human resources management responsibilities. This clause was first suggested and adopted in the Senate, and we believe there is much merit to such a clause. In fact, it is proposed that the government adopt a more targeted management rights clause to focus on the authorities that the commissioner needs to ensure effective police operations.

The amended and more targeted management rights clause would allow all proposals related to matters that were covered by RCMP-specific restrictions in Bill C-7 as originally proposed to be discussed at the negotiating table. It would also allow the parties to potentially incorporate these matters in a collective agreement, except where the employer considers that they infringe on the authority of the RCMP commissioner to ensure effective police operations. Should the bargaining agent seek to go to arbitration, the chairperson of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would decide whether the proposal infringes on management rights before the matter could be referred to arbitration.

The adoption of a management rights clause for the RCMP is consistent with the labour relations regime that applies to the rest of the federal public service.

Let me now turn to why it is important to preserve the restrictions that replicate those applying to other areas of the federal public service. Since 1967, matters that are a broad cross-sectional interest, such as pensions, are included for bargaining and dealt with under the legislation to ensure that the public interest is taken into account. Pensions for the rest of the public service are dealt with under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Pensions require a high degree of stability to assure pension plan members that their benefits are secure and will be delivered as expected.

However, the federal government has traditionally consulted with employee representatives on pension issues and is committed to continue this practice. In the case of the RCMP, the RCMP Superannuation Act requires that an RCMP pension advisory committee be established.

The RCMP is a national police service operating within the federal public administration. This is why the proposed labour relations regime for the RCMP was designed to align with the existing federal framework for labour relations and collective bargaining.

Unfortunately, I will not have time to speak to the government's proposed response to the other two amendments, one which concerns the secret ballot votes, and the other which addresses the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board, but I would like to close with a clear and unequivocal statement.

The government is committed to supporting RCMP members and reservists by providing them with a meaningful process for collective bargaining. Our proposed response addresses the key concerns of the Senate. It also takes into account the RCMP's role as a police organization. Finally, it ensures that its labour relations regime is aligned with the regime that applies to other federal public servants.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of times from the government that we have had ample time to debate this issue. The Liberals have said that we have had 16 hours of debate on this legislation. What I find interesting about that claim is that it has a presumption buried in it, which is that the conversation that happens in the House is simply for the benefit of the Liberals, and they listen only when they want. They can leave and come up with their answer, and that is what we have to deal with.

The conversation that happens in Parliament is not just for the benefit of government legislative drafters. It is for Parliament, with the idea being that Parliament might want to weigh in and make some changes. The idea that we have been debating the content of this motion for 16 hours, or whatever number the government wants to use, is false. I wonder if my hon. colleague wants to speak to the veracity of that claim.

I mentioned some issues earlier, and the member has mentioned some others, around how the grievance procedure is going to work, whether it is consistent with the CRCC recommendations that came out yesterday, and how exactly we are going to define the scope of the commissioner's power to maintain effective operations. These are all things we do not know and we are not part of the debate, to my memory. Perhaps the member has a different memory of events. Those were part of the original debate on Bill C-7, so there is genuinely new material for us to study and discuss to make sure we get this right, as the government claims, in the House anyway, that it would like to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my Conservative colleague's comments.

The background to Bill C-7 that we are debating today is that the Conservative Party is essentially against appropriate collective bargaining rights, and those members showed that when they brought in anti-labour bills such as Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Our government tabled Bill C-4 to put the discretion of certification back with the Public Service Labour Relations Board, where it used to be, to determine whether a secret ballot or a card check is the most appropriate. The board is committed to making sure that members' interests are reflected in the choice made.

That was the system we had until the previous Conservative government made those anti-union changes. When RCMP members were extensively consulted by the previous Conservative government, narrowing down the certification method to exclude a card-check system was not on their list of priorities.

The Conservative member is not reflecting the desire of RCMP members. He is not reflecting the fact that the dual system arbitrated through the Public Service Labour Relations Board has been in place successfully for many years.

Why would the member let this one element convince him to vote against all of the positives, like providing RCMP members with a labour relations opportunity, to be represented by a union, which is what they want and is what the Supreme Court ruled that they deserved to have? Why would he vote against that?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the House that the official opposition respects the Supreme Court's decision that the RCMP officers are entitled to bargain collectively. The Conservative Party supports the role of the mounted police and we thank the members for the great work they do on the front lines, serving Canadians every day.

It was interesting to hear the prior speaker from the government side say that we needed to move fast. It has taken the government almost 12 months, since June 2016, to bring the legislation to the House in response to the Senate amendments. RCMP families and members have been waiting that 12 months.

It is well known within policing circles across Canada that RCMP members have fallen behind significantly in their remuneration and their benefits as a result of that 12 months and the fact that this issue has taken so much time to come back to the House.

When members across the aisle say that they meet with members and that they will be happy, of course they will be happy because we are finally dealing with it. However, since the time of the decision, it has taken the Liberals two years to get to here. Clearly, this could have happened a lot sooner. Today we are told that we will only have five days of debate, that the Liberals are shutting the debate down. The reality is that we will have only two days of debate.

I will give a quick background on what is known as the RCMP unionization bill.

The Supreme Court ruled, in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario vs. Canada, that the existing labour relations regime violated the rights of the RCMP members under section 2(d) Freedom of Association of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ordered the government to remedy this charter breach.

As the official opposition, we took the position that the original bill, while a reasonable response to the court's ruling, could not be supported as it denied the RCMP members the right to vote or, as some people refer to it, a secret ballot in the certification process.

In June 2016, the Senate returned a significantly amended Bill C-7 to the House. Let me talk about those Senate amendments. These Senate amendments came back, after the Senate's scrutiny and study. They were unanimously supported by all members of all parties on all sides within the Senate. The amendments included: first, the right to vote or the secret ballot certification process; second, confirmed and clarified the existence of management rights for the RCMP commissioner; third, removed a number of items excluded from negotiations in the original bill, such as transfers, relocations and dismissals, uniforms and equipment; and fourth, enabled an arbitrator in a decision to consider not only the collective agreement but the legislative context as well.

Here is the government's response to those four amendments, which we received late last Thursday, early Friday. I will go at those four issues one at a time.

First, the government disagrees with the creation of the right to vote through a secret ballot. Second, it agrees with the RCMP commissioner, management rights and amendment. Third, it agrees with the removal of all exclusions. Fourth, it disagrees with the broader interpretation of grievances.

Clearly the government must take action to restore the confidence of the front-line police officers in the RCMP's management and restore the confidence in Canadians in the RCMP. That means ensuring the RCMP pay is in line with the pay of other police forces. it also means working to ensure appropriate recruitment and retention programs.

As mentioned, in January 2015, in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario vs. Canada, the Supreme Court said that the labour relations law violated the rights of RCMP members under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority ruling stated, “What is required is not a particular model, but a regime that does not substantially interfere with meaningful collective bargaining and thus complies with” the freedom of association.

I remind the House that in its ruling the court gave the government 12 months to remedy the charter breach.

In January 2016, the government requested and received an extension from the court until April 2016. To be fair, this was not an unreasonable request as there had been a general election in the interim. The government did after all deserve an opportunity to get it right. Well, the Liberals did not get it right.

Again to be fair, the bill in its original form was, for the most part, a reasonable response to the court's ruling. Members on this side of the House did take the time to point that out when it was originally debated almost a year ago. I will discuss how we did that later.

We also expressed our willingness to move this legislation quickly and to work constructively with the government. All of us as members of Parliament represent members of the RCMP in our ridings. Some of us know them closer than others, but we all had heard from them through our constituency offices as to what the issues were with respect to their importance.

In fact, there was some discussion, anecdotally, in my riding of the reason why we was here. It was not because the bill had been delayed even further. It was because of the yellow ribbon campaign of the front-line officers who began to take stripes off some of their uniforms and put yellow ribbons to replace them to express the fact that nothing was happening. Suddenly when they did that, we got action.

We also expressed our willingness to move legislation quickly, but it had a fatal flaw. Specifically, it denied the RCMP members a right to vote by secret ballot. By doing so, it denied those RCMP members with a choice free of intimidation from all sides on whether they wanted representation and who would represent them in collective bargaining negotiations.

The bill was returned to the House amended to include that right to vote secret ballot clause. Let us not forget that. The actual mover of the motion in the Senate on the government side, who happened to be, by the way, an RCMP member at one time, unanimously agreed to send it back to the House with that included. Also, this amendment was supported by the government bill in the Senate.

In June 2016, the Senate returned the amended bill to the House. For months, the government told us it was considering the Senate's amendments “as quickly as we can”. Here we are nearly a year later and we are just getting the government's response. It has been nearly two and a half years since the Supreme Court brought down its original ruling. One cannot help but wonder why there is suddenly a rush to get the bill passed after such a long delay.

Perhaps the yellow ribbon campaign was the catalyst, launched in response to an equally long-awaited pay package. Perhaps it is the increasing frustration from more and more RCMP officers who are expressing openly with RCMP management and with the government on a number of issues. Unfortunately, RCMP members had to be brought to the brink before the government finally woke up.

To quote the commissioner,“...I tell you all solemnly: we went to bat and our Minister...went to bat, and there was no better package to be had at this time”.

If true, I give the minister full credit. However, guess who is the only person in a position to strike the minister out when he went to bat for those RCMP members. It was the Prime Minister.

As mentioned earlier, the Senate's amendments introduced a secret ballot or right to vote certification process. As well, they confirmed and clarified the existence of management rights for the RCMP commissioner, they removed a number of items excluded as non-negotiable in the original bill, and they enabled an arbitrator in a decision to consider not only a future collective agreement but legislative context as well.

I am glad to see that the government has finally come forward with its response to the Senate, even if it did take nearly a year or so.

We continue to support the general direction of the bill. However, we simply cannot support any legislation that denies employees, especially RCMP members, their right to vote in a secret ballot, free of intimidation from all sides.

Earlier, my colleague rose on a question to the member who had just previously delivered a speech about this issue and how it is a fundamental right in our democracy for that secrecy of our vote. I could give many examples of how we defend this around the world, as a government. Over the years many members from the current government have asked to go to monitor elections in other countries, to monitor the fact that we hold sacred the right to be able to choose without intimidation from any side. One of the members I personally spoke with on this issue expressed to me his deep disappointment in the fact that the Senate amendment for the right to vote has been turned down by the government. As he relayed it to me, as was mentioned in another answer today, RCMP detachments take all forms, in terms of size, scale, and scope. We have many small detachments around the country and we have large detachments as well.

However, he pointed out that in the small detachments around the country that might have five or six members working there, maybe even less, how much of a role intimidation will play, in terms of how those members are asked to vote in this process, because the office has its superiors, it has members at all different ranks of membership in the RCMP and in their occupation. As he said, they really will not have a choice at all; they will have to be falling in line with their supervisors, essentially.

This is a crime that should not have happened, in terms of the government turning down what the Senate unanimously brought back as an amendment.

We are in support of our front-line members and we would like to see them have the direction that the bill is taking, giving them the collective rights.

I would like to make two last points. Number one, it has taken far too long for the government to get off its heels to bring it to the House, and number two, we will always protect the right to free voting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-7. Let me begin by saying that the government appreciates the thoughtful consideration given by the Senate to this historic piece of legislation that would enshrine in law the collective bargaining rights of regular RCMP members and reservists.

Our national mounted police service has been keeping peace across the land for almost a century and a half. I would like to thank members of the RCMP for their service and also for their advocacy on this legislation.

The only police force in Canada not to have the right to engage in collective bargaining has been the RCMP. The labour relations regime this bill would create would mark the beginning of a new era in the history of the RCMP.

Bill C-7 has several elements that reflect the clear preferences expressed by RCMP members during the consultations with members that occurred during the summer of 2015. Specifically, members indicated that they wanted a labour relations framework that would provide for a single national bargaining unit, a union that would primarily focus on representing RCMP members, and recourse to binding arbitration if a collective agreement could not be negotiated. Bill C-7 would create this framework.

Bill C-7 would also build on previous efforts to implement a robust labour relations regime for the RCMP, efforts that have included a number of measures to promote a healthy and respectful workplace. For example, in support of the 2014 amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, several of the RCMP's human resources management processes, policies, and procedures were updated. Among these were, first, a new investigation and resolution of harassment complaints policy that provides greater clarity and a single streamlined approach for dealing with complaints; second, a process to address misconduct in a more timely and effective manner and at the lowest appropriate level; third, a new code of conduct that specifically identifies harassment as a contravention of the code; fourth, an amended training curriculum that specifically addresses respect in the workplace and harassment; and, finally, an informal conflict management program.

Moreover, in February 2016, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness asked the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the RCMP's policies and procedures on workplace harassment and to evaluate the implementation of the recommendations the commission made in 2013. The commission reviewed the adequacy, appropriateness, sufficiency, and clarity of these policies, procedures, and guidelines for preventing and addressing allegations regarding workplace harassment in the RCMP.

Further, in July 2016, the Minister of Public Safety announced the appointment of Sheila Fraser as a special adviser. Her role was to provide advice and recommendations to the minister regarding the application of various policies and processes by the RCMP after the filing of legal proceedings against the organization in four specific cases. The recommendations made by Ms. Fraser and the commission will be carefully reviewed and will inform further work on improving the workplace of the RCMP.

While the RCMP has made strides with the initiatives, programs, and policies it has implemented, these two reviews will be useful in helping the minister fulfill the mandate the Prime Minister has given him to ensure that the RCMP is free from harassment. The government is strongly committed to whatever action is necessary to help RCMP members and employees feel safe and respected among their colleagues and supervisors.

As a member of the status of women committee, I and the other members of the committee have studied the issue of gender-based violence and harassment as well as barriers to the economic security and workplace leadership of women. We have heard that harassment in the workplace is a large barrier to women's participation in the economy, so I am very pleased to see the government taking action to ensure that female members of the RCMP can feel safe and respected at work.

Our proposed response to the amendments would strengthen the actions I have outlined by increasing the scope of what can be bargained, including harassment, an issue I brought up with the commissioner at the public safety committee. The government's proposed response meaningfully addresses the concerns with Bill C-7.

The bill we are debating today seeks to accept certain amendments and to amend or not accept others. Let me begin with the government's proposal to accept the removal of all restrictions on what may be included in collective agreements that are specific to the RCMP. As a result, matters associated with transfers, appraisals, harassment, and general aspects of workplace wellness, including the promotion of a respectful workplace and early conflict resolution, could be discussed at the bargaining table and included in the collective agreement or an arbitral award.

With this one change, we would increase the scope of what could be bargained considerably. I am pleased that the government has heard the concerns of the Senate and has acted on them, in particular on the issue of exclusions.

The proposal before us today would also amend the management rights clause adopted by the Senate. It proposes implementing a more targeted management rights clause that would focus on protecting the authorities the RCMP commissioner needs to ensure effective police operations. This approach would preserve the commissioner's authority to manage the RCMP and would ensure the operational integrity of the police service and the broader accountability of the RCMP for the safety of Canadians. The Government of Canada takes the responsibility to protect the safety and security of Canadians seriously. This clause would support that responsibility.

Let me now turn to the proposal to reject the requirement for a secret ballot vote for the certification of a bargaining agent to represent RCMP members and reservists. Our government believes that there should be a choice between a secret ballot and a card check system. A secret ballot only system is inconsistent with providing a fair and balanced process of certification and properly recognizing the role of bargaining agents in that process.

Let me now speak to our proposal to not proceed with expanding the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to hear grievances on a wider range of matters relating to terms and conditions of employment. Under the existing Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board has jurisdiction to hear grievances related to the interpretation or application of a collective agreement. Accepting this expansion would be inconsistent with the role of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board in relation to the rest of the federal public service. What is more, there are already specialized grievance and appeal processes established under the RCMP Act to deal with these matters. In fact, such an expansion would create two different grievance processes that would apply to RCMP members, allowing them to file identical grievances under both the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the RCMP Act. This could potentially lead to conflicting decisions and undermine the commissioner's ability to ensure effective police operations.

Instead, and consistent with the rest of the federal public service, Bill C-7 would allow represented RCMP members and reservists, with the support of their bargaining agent, to file grievances pursuant to the Public Service Labour Relations Act on the interpretation or application of a collective agreement or arbitral award. Such grievances would be adjudicated by the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. RCMP members' right to file grievances and appeals to address workplace issues would continue to be administered pursuant to the RCMP Act.

I heard repeatedly from RCMP members about the exclusions contained in Bill C-7. I believe that the proposed response to the Senate amendments would meaningfully address the concerns with respect to Bill C-7 by increasing the scope of the issues that could be bargained. The amendments would also ensure that the employer and any future RCMP member bargaining agent could engage in meaningful discussions, in good faith, on topics of importance to RCMP members and reservists.

At the same time, the proposal would take into account the operational integrity of the RCMP as a police organization. It would ensure alignment with the labour relations regime that applies to federal public service employees. With these amendments, Bill C-7 would continue to respect the 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision by providing RCMP members and reservists with a meaningful process for collective bargaining.

I thank the RCMP members for their patience as this bill moves through the legislative process.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of the government's motion related to Bill C-7. This piece of legislation is important for both the RCMP and for Canadians. It is a step forward in Canadian labour relations.

As we all know, the bill originates with the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada more than two years ago, in January 2015. There is some urgency for us to enact this piece of legislation into law so that the RCMP can be the best police force in the world, with good management practices matching the ability of our RCMP officers to keep Canadians safe.

The court found that certain parts of the RCMP labour relations regime were in fact unconstitutional because they prevented the formation of an independent RCMP employee organization. The government took steps, including extensive consultation, to bring this framework into compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling, and Bill C-7 is the result.

I differ with the position of the previous speaker by saying that there has been extensive consultation. The bill has been under a microscope for a great deal of time in a committee of the House of Commons and a committee of the Senate, as well as through debate in the House of Commons and debate in the Senate. It is now time for us to act quickly on this motion to ensure that we can have effective collective bargaining for the very hard-working members of the RCMP.

With the passage of this bill, RCMP members and reservists would, for the first time, have a labour relations framework in place that would allow them to choose whether or not to be represented in negotiations by an employee organization, something that other police services in Canada already have. Almost 100 years ago, the Vancouver police union received its charter and was established with the mandate to effectively and democratically represent its members as a bargaining unit under the British Columbia labour code. It is time for us to act so that Canadians have a similar approach to policing in Canada.

Action is something that RCMP officers know a lot about. As the chair of the public safety and national security committee, I want to commend members of the RCMP for consistently and constantly serving and protecting Canadians with diligence, with grace, and with a tremendous competence that Canadians have begun to appreciate more and more. Whether it is diving into icy water to rescue a woman in distress or protecting us in this very place, RCMP officers demonstrate their personal dedication and self-sacrifice in service of others, and now we as members of this chamber need to reciprocate and take action to help them, to serve them, and to protect them.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness are strongly committed to whatever action is necessary to help RCMP members, trainees, and employees feel safe and respected among their colleagues and supervisors.

A number of steps have been taken since 2014 to protect RCMP members in the workplace. These include measures to address harassment and conflict management as well as promote a healthy and respectful workplace.

The RCMP continues its ongoing efforts to improve its work environment, including a modernized code of conduct, a streamlined harassment investigation and resolution process, and improved training for harassment investigators. Bill C-7 builds on these efforts to implement a robust labour relations regime for the RCMP. To that end, the government has given thorough consideration to the Senate's amendments and is now ready to move forward.

The government's response significantly addresses the main concerns that we heard at the House of Commons standing committee as well as in the Senate, and I am very proud to support the government's response to the Senate amendments.

In the spirit of compromise that is so important in an institution like ours, the government is willing to accept the removal of all restrictions on what may be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards that are specific to the RCMP. These restrictions on what could be collectively bargained for were the focal points of the criticism that we heard at committee and that we are now acting on.

Sometimes this kind of conversation takes time. However, that conversation has been had. I stress to members of this chamber that the reality is we need to act quickly and effectively. We have considered, and now is the time to act.

That is why I am pleased to report that the government's response would allow the employer and any future RCMP member bargaining agent to engage in meaningful discussions in good faith on topics of importance to the RCMP members and reservists who were excluded from collective bargaining rights under the original version of Bill C-7.

As a result, matters associated with transfers, appraisals, harassment, and general aspects of workplace wellness, including the promotion of a respectful workplace and early conflict resolution, could be discussed at the bargaining table and included in a collective agreement or arbitration award. Of course, conditions of work, such as hours of work, scheduling, call-back, and reporting conditions could also be collectively bargained, as could leave provisions, such as designated paid holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, and parental leave. Labour relations matters, such as terms and conditions for grievance procedures and procedures around classification and workplace adjustment, are also part of that process.

The proposal before us today also accepts the idea of a management rights clause, but proposes implementing a more targeted clause that focuses on protecting the authorities that the RCMP commissioner needs in order to ensure effective police operations. This is a balanced approach. The reality is that the bargaining unit would have the right to engage in conversations at the bargaining table about issues important to RCMP members, and management would reserve the right to ensure that Canadians are safe and protected and that we have operational institutional effectiveness at the RCMP, not by excluding anything in collective bargaining but by ensuring we have a targeted approach to make sure the RCMP functions properly, as Canadians would want.

As I am sure all my hon. colleagues on these benches do, the Government of Canada takes seriously the responsibility to protect the safety and security of Canadians. This amended management rights clause supports that responsibility.

Now let us consider why the motion disagrees with the removal of restrictions that replicate those applying to other areas of the federal public service.

As our national police service, the RCMP must have a labour regime that is aligned with and consistent with the fundamental framework for labour relations and collective bargaining that exists within the whole of the federal public service. As such, Bill C-7 extends to RCMP members many general exclusions that already apply in the rest of the public service, such as staffing, pensions, organization of work, and the assignment of duties.

With respect to pensions, while the public service pension plan has never been the subject of collective bargaining under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, or its predecessor, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the federal government has traditionally consulted with employee representatives on pension issues and is committed to continuing that conversation, negotiation, and consultation.

Public sector pensions have established statutory pension advisory committees whose membership is composed of employer, employee, and pensioner representatives. These committees review matters respecting the administration, design, and funding of the benefits provided under the superannuation acts and make recommendations to the responsible minister about those matters. This is an activity we would continue.

When it comes to the certification process, I do not believe that the certification of a bargaining agent to represent RCMP members and reservists should require a secret ballot. We need to be consistent with the government's proposed law, Bill C-4, and it would be reasonable that an organization wanting to represent RCMP members should not be subject to certification processes different from those of other organizations under federal labour relations legislation.

Finally, the government proposes to not proceed with expanding the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to hear grievances on a wider range of matters relating to terms and conditions of employment. That would be inconsistent with its work with the rest of the federal public service.

Now is the time to act on Bill C-7. The House of Commons standing committee deliberated it thoroughly and thoughtfully, and heard concerns. The Senate has deservedly done its work and has appropriately amended it. The government has considered those amendments and has determined that some of them fall in line with the government's proposed agenda with respect to the RCMP certification process.

I am pleased to support Bill C-7 and welcome all other members to support the bill and our amendments as we go forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a problem, and it is not one that the government can say in good faith that it was not aware of, because it is one that we have raised.

We have said that we need to get Bill C-7 back to the House, because it is creating legal uncertainty for prospective bargaining agents. Exactly because Bill C-7 is not what confers the right of collective bargaining on RCMP members, because it is a decision of the Supreme Court, they are allowed to apply it at any time under the existing rules. Therefore, because the NDP agrees with what the government is saying, if not what it does, that there is justification for a unique collective bargaining framework for RCMP members, although we may disagree about the details of what should be in it, we thought it was really important to get that in place as soon as possible. We knew and the government knew that there were prospective bargaining agents out there getting people to sign cards, demonstrating interest in the lead-up potentially to a vote. Bill C-4 has not gone through the Senate; the government cannot seem to accomplish that, so those agents do not know if they would need to have a vote or whether a card check is going to work. There is a lot of legal uncertainty.

We have been saying for a long time that the government needs to act on Bill C-4 and get it done. It needs to act on Bill C-7 and get it done. Otherwise, the government is risking getting into a situation where people start to act in the current legal context and then the rug is pulled out from underneath their feet, and all of a sudden the rules that they were organizing and applying under are not the same rules that their application is being treated by.

That is exactly the situation that is developing. It was not hard to see or imagine that would happen. It is a real shame that we have reached this point. The government needs to do a better job of extricating itself from this, lest it be perceived as being partisan in an area where it really ought not to be.

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

Mr. Speaker, this really has been part of the story. It has been a long story now, because the need for legislation creating a framework for collective bargaining for RCMP members has been before the government and before the House almost since we convened. Through that process, there are many who felt that the government is in a very close working relationship with management on this and that it is simply not the case that prospective bargaining agents who are providing the voice of rank and file members have had the same access to government and the same influence on government when coming up with these rules.

For the NDP, the role the government should be playing is as an independent arbiter. There was a decision made by the Supreme Court which said that RCMP members should have the right to free and fair collective bargaining, and the role of government should be to have gone out and figured out what are those aspects that are unique to the RCMP that call for a special framework.

We heard from RCMP members that they want one national bargaining unit. They want binding arbitration and they do not want the right to strike. Those are the important elements of Bill C-7, but beyond that, a lot of our debate, particularly with respect to the exclusions, has been about how much of what management does not want to have to deal with is management going to be exempted from dealing with through the legislation. A lot of people have felt that the government is simply too close to management on those issues. That is a problem because even if it is not the case, it certainly creates the perception that RCMP management is calling the shots.

I will give another example of where the government has helped to make a mess where there need not have been one. The period of 11 months from getting the Senate amendments until now was way longer than it had to be. What happened in April, just a couple of months ago, eight months after the Senate amendments, was that two organizations applied for certification. One is making an application to be a national bargaining agent, which would be allowed under Bill C-7, but the other is making an application to represent Quebec members only, which would not be allowed once Bill C-7 passes. I have heard from members who now feel that if Bill C-7 had passed earlier, they would not have had a problem, but now that these applications have been made, they feel that the government's rush to get this through effectively amounts to taking sides between one applicant or the other. When the legislation passes, and that is the question that is now before the labour board, it will rule one of those applications out.

By needlessly delaying, the Liberals have created at least a perception that they are taking sides which need not have been created. They created a lot of legal uncertainty and for the organization that has applied to represent Quebec members only, a lot of needless work, because at the end of the day, this is not going to happen for them if the government gets this through.

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

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. There are unique aspects to the RCMP. RCMP members would tell us that. They think they should have a special framework for bargaining, and that is why we support, in principle, Bill C-7. Our dispute has been with the details of how that is going to be implemented.

Yes, absolutely, there needs to be a unique bargaining framework. Our point has been that, yes, that should be determined by management and the union at the table. Our concern has been that the government's approach, in our view, has too often not been distinguishable from management's approach. There are some broken aspects of the institution right now, which is what the CRCC report yesterday talked about, that not all is well within the RCMP.

Our concern is that giving layer after layer of protection to management in the legislation would actually legislate some of the broken aspects of the current culture and not allow management and the union to work that out. We believe that having a good union with full capability to bring things to the table and work things out at the bargaining table and job sites effectively is a good way to start correcting some of what is wrong in the culture of the RCMP and that the government may be interfering with that by the way it is protecting management in legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up more or less where I left off last Friday.

Members will recall that debate started on the government response to the Senate amendments last Friday. The response had been tabled only the preceding evening, the Thursday evening, and I want to come back to that because it is an important part of the debate around this government response that there has been limited time, and because of the time allocation just passed because of the government, there is only going to be a very limited amount of time for the consideration of the government response in the House. That is not just time for debate. That is time for the opposition parties, to be sure, but also for the stakeholders like the prospective bargaining agents and RCMP members themselves to digest what the government response to the Senate amendments is and then to determine whether they agree with that. Therefore, it bears repeating that it is not a lot of time.

When we look at the government's own assessment of the complexity of the matter and how much time it takes to do justice to these issues, we get a very different idea of how much time one would want to take to be able to consider the government's response. The Liberals took almost 11 months to consider the response of the Senate to their bill. I would remind the House that we voted on the original version of Bill C-7 on May 30, 2016. That bill was then introduced in the Senate on May 31, 2016. I have not heard any of the government members say that the other place did not give Bill C-7 its due consideration. In fact, they said that the Senate did quite the job of going through the details of that bill. The Senate did that in about 20 days, from May 31 to June 21, 2016. Then it took almost 11 months for the government to come back, and now it is asking us to take a position on its response within only five days. Therefore, there is a real question of fairness.

I would never want to suggest that the President of the Treasury Board was misleading in his answers to the House. Earlier, he did say that we have debated this bill in the House for 16 hours. If that was not meant to deliberately mislead, then it is a sign of some laziness, perhaps, that he did not bother to change his speaking notes from third reading of the bill, which also was moved under time allocation. What we debated at that time, in May 2016, is very different from what we are debating today, which has to do not only with the amendments made by the other place, because we have not had an opportunity to deliberate on those in this place, but on top of the amendments made by the other place that the government took 11 months to consider, we are now also having a debate on the government response to those amendments. That is not a simple response. It is not a simple rejection or acceptance of those amendments. It is actually an amendment to those amendments.

Therefore, the idea that we are going to do a proper job and do justice to RCMP members across the country who have fought for years in court to get the right to bargain collectively and want to see it done properly—and the government says it wants to see it done properly—and get that done in five days, unfortunately I do not think we can. I regret that, and I regret that we only have those five days. We are doing our best on this side of the House to give our considered opinion on the content of that legislation, but it is hard to do so under the time constraints unreasonably and unfairly imposed by the government on this motion. That is important to say, because it is no small part of how the debate today is going to unfold and of the decision that is ultimately going to be taken.

We do have some concerns. There are some positive aspects to this response and then there are some aspects that warrant further study. I will say again that the study is not going to happen, because we are going to settle the issue today, one way or the other, and the bill will be on its way back to the other place.

On the positive side, it is no secret here that we do support having a card-check system as an option for RCMP members. The government has been clear and consistent in its support for that. We agree on that. That is good, and we are glad to see in the government response that it is maintaining the commitment to making card check available. That is something that is important in principle, but it is also important logistically in this case because RCMP members are spread out right across the country. They are in rural and remote communities. Some RCMP members are posted internationally. They can reach 50% or more of the membership and if they agree with having a union, then they know that if they have a vote they are going to get that 50% plus one.

If there is a vote, all at once, that means everybody has to get a ballot at the same time, they have to be able to return that ballot within a similar timeframe, and the logistics of organizing that are very difficult. It is especially difficult if that is going to be thrown on the prospective bargaining agent. These are not established unions, by definition.

The RCMP has not been unionized before, and Bill C-7 rightly requires that a union representing RCMP members would have to consist only of RCMP members. Bill C-7 also talks about one national bargaining unit that is police only. There is not the pre-existing union with the resources and expertise that could mount that kind of vote, and do it in a way that all RCMP members could be reassured that it has the thoroughness and integrity of process that RCMP members would expect when certifying a bargaining agent.

We were glad to see that in the bill. We are glad to see the removal of exclusions from the bill. Members of the House who have been following this legislation will know that we in the NDP have been arguing very hard for the removal of those exclusions. We believe that is the best way to ensure that RCMP members get the free and fair collective bargaining that they fought so hard to achieve for themselves in court.

Just as a quick aside, we have heard the government trying to take credit somehow for conferring collective bargaining rights on RCMP members. That is simply not true. The Supreme Court made that decision, and it is because of the Supreme Court that RCMP members have the right to bargain collectively. That was not a decision of the current government, and it was not a decision by the last government, not by any stretch. That is a right that was conferred on RCMP members by the Supreme Court as a function of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms here in Canada that the court has said guarantees people the right to collective bargaining if they want and if they choose that for themselves.

Bill C-7 helps set a framework for collective bargaining, but we also know that Bill is not necessary, although it is desirable if the government gets it right. It will have certain things that RCMP members have said they want: one national bargaining unit, binding arbitration, and some other features. That is good. It makes sense to have a unique framework for the RCMP, in terms of collective bargaining.

However, Bill C-7 does not give them that. The RCMP has the right to collective bargaining right now. In fact, there are two active applications before the labour board to represent RCMP members. One is by the NPF, for a national bargaining unit, and the other is by the AMPMQ, to represent members only in Quebec. I will come back to that in a bit.

This is where we are. Bill C-7 is not the government conferring collective bargaining rights to the RCMP members. That is a right they won; that is a right that is theirs irrespective of the point of view of any government of the day. That is something that has been guaranteed to them by the Supreme Court.

We are glad to see the exclusions being removed and the government ultimately agreeing with the NDP suggestion at committee and here in the House of Commons last May, which was to get rid of those exclusions.

However, we do have concerns that the management rights clause, which is being put in place of the exclusions, may be used as a way to reintroduce those exclusions by other means. It may be that we could dispel those concerns over time, if we had the time to study this properly. It is true that in many cases there are management rights clauses, either in collective agreements or in legislation. That is okay.

However, some of the language is interesting. In the Senate amendment, the Senate essentially said that the management rights of the RCMP would include anything having to do with the human resources powers conferred to the RCMP commissioner under the RCMP Act. What we have heard from the government is that it did not agree with that, and it is going to change that. It wants a more targeted management rights clause.

The word used by the parliamentary secretary on Friday in debate is “targeted” not “limited”. So the government changed the language from management rights having to do with the human resources authority granted to the commissioner under the RCMP Act to a management rights clause that enshrines the power of the commissioner to ensure effective operations. That sounds, on the face of it, pretty good. Who would not want the operations of the RCMP to be effective?

However, the arguments made by the commissioner before committee, both at the House and the Senate, for the exclusions were essentially saying that all these things have to be excluded because to not exclude them would impede the effective operations of the RCMP.

I think RCMP members, and Canadians, have a right to feel suspect that this management rights clause, I would argue, while it may be more targeted from a functional point of view on the effectiveness of the force, is nevertheless broader in that it allows the commissioner to reach outside of his existing authority under the RCMP Act for human resource issues only—there is an itemized list in section 20.2(1), (a) through (l)—and interpret that to mean just about whatever the commissioner may want to have it mean, depending on what is being brought to the table.

There are reasonable concerns about that. I think more time is needed to examine that to see if this is just going to be another way for the RCMP commissioner to reintroduce exclusions. I would say, even though we may be able to challenge the RCMP commissioner's interpretation of that language—the RCMP commissioner may not be the final authority on that—what it does mean is that when a new bargaining unit, if the RCMP members do choose to certify one, brings things to the table, they can end up in lengthy delays, first at the labour board, potentially, and then in court, trying to define what “effective operations” means. Then we are going to have someone at the labour board, presumably, weighing in on whether the commissioner is right about what it takes to run effective operations as the RCMP.

It is not clear to me that this management rights clause does not provide another way of introducing some of those exclusions. It is not clear to me that it is not going to trigger lengthy and onerous processes in order to, ultimately, be able to define that language because it is not defined by the government what “effective operations” actually means, so there is no limited scope to that definition offered by the government. I think that is something we are concerned about.

With respect to grievances, the government says it does not want grievances filed under the PSLRA and under the RCMP Act. Grievances should rest in one place, so we do not have dual claims.

Again, on the surface, that does make some sense. That sounds like a common-sense argument, just as it sounds pretty good when the President of the Treasury Board says we have already debated this for 16 hours. However, then we look into the details and we wonder if maybe that is not a bit misleading.

The thrust of many of the government's arguments with respect to Bill C-7 is that it wants to align RCMP labour relations better with the pre-existing model of the public service. However here, all of a sudden, what we are seeing is the grievance process carved out and put under the RCMP Act. Rather than trying to have the maximum amount of grievances happen under the PSLRA, we are getting the maximum amount happen under the RCMP Act.

There are two issues with that; one has to do, in a very practical sense, with what that means in the workplace. The non-commissioned officers of the RCMP are being deemed public servants. That is a process that is happening and will be complete sometime in 2018. What that means is that we may have an RCMP officer and a civilian member working side by side in the same office—like a divisional headquarters, for instance—dealing with sexual harassment from the same superior officer, and it is going to have two different grievance processes. One is going to happen under the PSLRA, and an independent third party, essentially, oversees that grievance process. However, for the officer, that grievance process is going to happen under the RCMP Act. We know that, at the end of the day, it is the commissioner who ultimately rules on that.

In fact, we just had a report come out yesterday that said that part of the problem in the institution and the culture of the RCMP is that grievances ultimately get determined in-house by the commissioner. One of the recommendations was to move away from that.

The report that came out just yesterday from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, called “Report into Workplace Harassment in the RCMP”, says:

...unlike public service employees who have the right to grieve the outcome of a harassment complaint in accordance with the procedures set out in their collective agreement (including arbitration before an independent third party), RCMP members still do not have access to an impartial third party appeals body.

That is because their grievances go through the RCMP Act.

What the government is doing in its response directly contradicts the advice of the report that came out yesterday, which said that grievance processes need to get further away from the commissioner, not closer to the commissioner, and it is doing it in a way that actually deviates from its mainline argument for most of what it is talking about, which is to bring RCMP labour relations practices into closer conformity with the rest of the public service. It feels a bit as if there is some cherry-picking going on, in terms of when to apply the argument for harmonizing public service labour relations and RCMP labour relations and when, when it is convenient either to the government or management—it is not always clear—to have things dealt with separately under the uniqueness of the RCMP.

We are concerned that there are issues of fairness both, as I say, in the concrete case of the workplace and also in terms of the general arguments provided by the government. It bears saying that one of the problems with this process is that too often it has been too difficult to determine the difference between government interests and management interests in this debate. We know that stakeholders did not get a sneak peak at the government's response. That is why I asked the President of the Treasury Board if RCMP management did and if RCMP management had special input into this process that other groups did not have. I note that we did not get a straight answer to that question. We got an answer to another question that was not asked.

If the government is trying, which I think it should, to give the perception that it is not tied at the hip to management in this process, but to actually be an independent third party arbiter that is trying to set up free and fair collective bargaining, I have to say that so far, it has done a very poor job of that.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation Motion

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the President of the Treasury Board, it is important to remember that Bill C-7 represents a historic turning point for RCMP members. It would give them the labour relations framework to allow them to pursue their collective interests in the way they wanted.

Could the minister please tell us how Bill C-7 specifically provides the framework for which members have asked?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to the Senate amendments to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of said stage of the bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the Senate amendments of said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-7—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of Senate amendments to 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.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The agenda going forward is going to be hugely vigorous and complex, as I think it probably is all the time for the commissioner of the RCMP. It's not easy, but as you say, there will soon be the enactment of Bill C-7 that will establish a new collective bargaining regime. There will be the response forthcoming to Sheila Fraser and to Ian McPhail, and a whole variety of other very important and pressing issues.

The appointment decision with respect to the new commissioner is one of those that is reserved to the prerogative of the Prime Minister, but the work is well advanced now on assembling the selection committee that will represent the full breadth of Canadian society, senior people, who will have the capacity to do the search and recruitment and present the Prime Minister with excellent alternatives from which he will choose in due course.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you.

With respect to civilian surveillance, I understand that you are saying “maybe”.

I would also like to talk to you about the choice of Mr. Paulson's successor. The choice was made quite quickly for CSIS. Can you give the committee an update on the search for a replacement for Mr. Paulson? There is indeed a lot of activity at the RCMP further to these reports. There is also Bill C-7, which is still being considered by the House. Mr. Paulson's successor will clearly play an extremely important role in achieving the objectives you just mentioned. How far along are you in the process of finding his replacement?

Public Service Labour Relations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to finally get a chance to weigh in again on the Bill C-7 debate. It has been a very long wait, so it is good to see that the process is back in action.

As I mentioned in some of my questions previously on this bill, it is a bit of a mystery to me, given the content of the government's opinion with respect to the amendments coming from the other place, why it essentially took 11 months to get back to this place, particularly when previously, in the debate last spring, the government was very anxious to move the bill through the House.

At that time, the government made arguments essentially to the effect that the sky would fall if we did not get these amendments in place. Of course, we know now that the sky did not fall. What did happen was that it created a significant period, still ongoing, of legal uncertainty for prospective bargaining agents. That has made it very difficult for them to be able to organize properly.

We are now in a situation, as of the beginning of April, where there are two applicant now, one to represent RCMP members across the country, which would be consistent with what is in Bill C-7, but because Bill C-7 is not law, and again I repeat that is due to delays on the government's part, having had amendments from the other place as early as June 21 of last year, there is also an application from an association to represent members from Quebec alone. If Bill C-7 passes in its current form, that would not be allowed.

Because of dithering on the Liberal side with respect to getting this done, and the companion legislation Bill C-4 as well, which gets rid of some bills from the previous Parliament affecting certification and decertification of unions, we are now in a real mess.

I think the government risks the perception, at least, of interfering in an ongoing certification process, because it is now trying to advance legislation which, had it passed earlier, there would be no question about it and there would be no problem. Now, because there is an application for regional representation within the RCMP, the government may be perceived by some as taking sides as to which organization should represent members in Quebec or any other region of the province that has an organization apply to represent either members of a certain province or certain region in the meantime.

That is why it was really important, as the government itself argued last spring, to get this legislation through. That is why we in the NDP were happy to help move that legislation through and work with the government to meet its timeline, while nevertheless improving the legislation, for instance, by taking out the needless and prejudicial exclusions on bargaining that were included in the original part of the legislation, and which the other place saw fit to remove.

Now the government is indicating that maybe it thinks it is not a bad idea to get rid of those, although it is replacing them with some other language. As the member for Brandon—Souris indicated, we only saw notice of that motion yesterday late in the evening. It is early to try to provide detailed comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, I will resume my comments on Tuesday, when hopefully I will have been able to take the time to examine the response in more detail.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise to speak to the government's motion in respect of the amendments brought forward by the Senate to Bill C-7.

Before I begin my remarks, I want to take this moment to personally thank the 28,000-plus regular members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Throughout Canadian history, they have played an integral role and to this day continue to serve and protect the communities they are posted to.

The Conservative Party respects the Supreme Court's decision that RCMP officers are entitled to organize and bargain collectively. We will always support the RCMP, and we thank all members for the great work they do on the front lines in keeping our communities and neighbourhoods safe.

For the most part, Bill C-7 was a reasonable response to the court's ruling. However, I did not and cannot support any legislation that denies employees, especially RCMP members, the right to vote in a secret ballot on whether to unionize. RCMP members risk their lives every day. The least we can do is give them the democratic right to vote free of all intimidation on whether to unionize.

It is crucial to step back and understand the full context of how this legislation got here in the first place.

Currently, RCMP members are not allowed to unionize and bargain collectively. They have no recourse to arbitration or strikes. These matters were brought to the Supreme Court of Canada, which rendered its decision that struck down the exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of “employee” in the Public Service Labour Relations Act as being unconstitutional.

Moreover, the Supreme Court said that sections of the RCMP regulations breached the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was that Supreme Court decision that stated that careful and methodical consultations must take place. It also required members of the House of Commons to enshrine the constitutional freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining if they so wish.

It was during those consultations that a significant majority of those who participated supported the idea of forming a union. It was through those consultations that members of the RCMP indicated that they preferred to use binding arbitration, without the right to strike, as the way to resolve stalled collective bargaining. This is in line with various other police organizations across the country. The members were also clear that they wanted to be represented by a single national employee organization, whose primary mandate would be the representation of its members.

Many members in the House represent constituents who have been or currently are serving members in the RCMP. In fact, there are currently RCMP members posted to Parliament Hill, and they are part of our daily lives while the House is in session.

Many members are following this legislation closely and applaud the work of the Senate and the amendments it brought forward on Bill C-7, a bill 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.

I feel it is appropriate to point out that the Senate passed these amendments and sent the legislation back to the House over ten months ago. My colleague just pointed out in his question that it is actually closer to 11 months.

I understand that the government wanted to fully review the amendments and to consult widely. Public Safety Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Privy Council Office, and the Prime Minister's Office were all involved in determining the government's response to these amendments. Even though there were many government departments and officials involved in this process, the government should have moved on this debate months ago, a point that was just made, as the Supreme Court ruling, I point out, contained a time frame for implementing legislation that is collecting dust.

I know many members of the RCMP and the various other stakeholders involved in drafting the legislation would have preferred to have been at this stage at a much earlier date.

Second, on a procedural matter, the rank-and-file members of the RCMP should know that the Liberal government only tabled its motion to the Senate amendments late last night and expected members of this chamber to be prepared to speak to it today. I can only speculate on why the government took this course of action. However, I do believe that at the outset of this legislation back in 2016, even the government's own caucus was deeply divided on the exclusions from the bargaining table found in the legislation.

For example, the hon. member for Beaches—East York said during the public safety committee meeting on April 21, 2016, during clause by clause consideration:

I actually have serious concerns with the exclusions as they exist, for the simple reason that in all the evidence we heard, we heard repeatedly that these exclusions as they relate to workplace safety specifically are major issues that unions are not going to be able to put on the table when they collectively bargain.

While I will not lament too much the government's disregard to providing the ample time to prepare a response to its motion on which amendments it is willing to accept, I will at least thank the Liberals for finally getting back to the task at hand and allowing us as members of Parliament to speak to the Senate amendments. Enough time has already been wasted and it is time to move on with this much delayed legislation.

To provide greater context on how we reached this point, it is important to highlight that many of the amendments the Senate passed were brought forward during the original House debates and at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. After reviewing the minutes, it is important to thank the hon. members for their due diligence in pointing out some of the flaws that were found in the original bill.

In particular, I would like to thank my fellow Manitoban, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, for the work he did, as he just pointed out, on reviewing the legislation and providing different points of view.

It is abundantly clear that our Conservative caucus members were very much willing to work with the government to meet the timelines as outlined in the Supreme Court decision. The legislation could not have been drafted overnight, as the very make-up of the RCMP is distinctive and unique from every other public service occupation. We know the paramilitary nature of the RCMP had to be considered as a unique element when designing the bargaining environment.

This will not shock the members of the NDP when I say the RCMP should be given explicit language, found in this legislation, that will guarantee members of the RCMP the right to a secret ballot if they do decide to form a union and collectively bargain with the Crown. This basic democratic principle must be enshrined in law, not only in Bill C-7 but also in Bill C-4, which was amended by the Senate. I want the record to be clear that our Conservative caucus supports the Senate amendments in both Bill C-7 and Bill C-4 that pertain to the right of workers to have a secret ballot.

Previously I have spoken out against any attempts to roll back the rights of hard-working union members and to repeal the transparency of unions, which finally allowed sunshine to be let into their financial ledgers. While Bill C-7 does not relate to union transparency, it sure has a lot to do with the ability of the RCMP to certify or decertify a union. I do believe the current government is trying to eliminate the guarantee of a secret ballot, not because it wants to support hard-working Canadians but because there are ulterior motives, such as a bargaining chip with various other public service unions.

The elimination of the current government policy of enshrining secret ballots goes far beyond just the RCMP. It involves hundreds of thousands of federally regulated employees across the country.

I originally criticized the Liberals for the lightening speed at which they introduced Bill C-4, the legislation that stripped away workers' rights, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that we are still debating the legislation that was brought forward in February 2016, and it has yet to receive royal assent. This is not such a bad thing and to give credit where credit is due, the Senate also amended that legislation and sent it back to the House.

Liberal MPs in the House today should carefully review the legislation, which was amended by the Senate. They will quickly see that the Senate wanted this legislation to provide RCMP members with the guarantee they would receive a ballot and be able to cast the vote on whether to form a union in secret. This is the only guaranteed way to ensure there is no coercion or intimidation applied from any side of the argument. This would ensure that no matter the rank or seniority, all members of the RCMP are treated equally and fairly and, most of all, without any fear of repercussions on how they proceeded on collectively bargaining.

The Senate has been applying its powers to amend legislation quite frequently in the past few months. I applaud it for its ability to take a deep dive into complex and politically sensitive matters. There is no expectation that the government has to accept every amendment brought forward, but it would be wise for Liberal members to note that even their government House leader in the Senate and all the new independent members, including all former Liberal members who are now part of the independent Liberal caucus, voted to ensure the RCMP was guaranteed its right to a secret ballot. It is far and few between that unanimity is reached on legislation, except in exceptional circumstances or on motherhood and apple pie sorts of issues.

I think we can all agree that Bill C-7 is a rather complex and nuanced issue and the fact that all senators, regardless of political stripe, agreed that the right to a secret ballot must not only be given to the RCMP in Bill C-7, but that all federally regulated environments must be given the same protection. I do not buy the line from the government's benches that giving the RCMP the right to a secret ballot would treat it differently. I would remind the House that in a briefing presented to the public safety committee, it was told that all previous certifications of public sector unions were done by secret ballot. By accepting this amendment, it would actually treat the RCMP equally in terms of certification or decertification, as other public sector unions.

Furthermore, I would like to quote my colleague, the hon. member for Durham, who stated:

...my friends in the other parties are in Parliament not through a card check of their voters and their constituents but by their secret ballot vote, which is a fundamental tenet of our democracy.

It bothers me that we would suggest the federal government and the federal government's unionized work environment would have the same sort of intimidation stories you hear in relation to some private sector unionization efforts from years ago with unfair labour practices...

The importance of the secret ballot as a democratic principle must be upheld. Every member in this chamber is here today because residents in their ridings chose to give them the most personal thing they possess: their vote. We have no higher duty in our role as members than to safeguard the democratic principles that hold our country together. The secret ballot is the highest pillar of this process and it seems absurd to me that any member of the House could argue that we need less voter protection, that we need less transparency, that we need less democracy.

While I recognize that the right to a secret ballot was just one of the amendments the Senate asked the government to revise in Bill C-7, it is, among others, that the government has decided not to accept it.

In continuation of the real and deep criticism I have of the Liberal government's intentions of stripping away the rights of workers, I would like to quote the hon. member for Carleton who originally spoke on the legislation.

He said that by removing the right of a secret ballot vote, it was important to be very clear on what this meant. It meant that a union could take over a federally regulated force without there being a vote by the member who worked in that workplace, that thousands of employees from any number of federal employers could be forced to pay dues and be represented by a union for which they never had a chance to cast a vote.

He said that this would be particularly alarming when it related to the RCMP, an organization comprised of members who put their lives on the line each and every day, in part to defend our democratic way of life. Therefore, it was a great irony that members of the RCMP would be deprived of the most basic democratic right, which was the right to vote in secret on whether to certify a union.

It is my sincere hope today that I will be able, through this debate and my arguments, to convince enough members of the government to demand the executive branch accept the Senate's amendment on enshrining the right to a secret ballot.

For example, Conservative Senator Nancy Greene Raine asked Senator Larry W. Campbell, who was appointed a Liberal Senator by Paul Martin in 2005 and was also an RCMP officer, about his thoughts on a secret ballot vote and if he was concerned that without a secret ballot vote, it might set up some ill will. Senator Campbell agreed with her statement. Senator Campbell also went on to say that it was wonderful to be an independent who moved second reading of Bill C-7 and then was able to actually talk about it.

That is refreshing to hear, that even the senator who introduced the bill, who in fact was a former Liberal before the senators were made independents, can step back, have an objective view, apply his sober second thought, and agree the legislation can be improved upon.

It was during his remarks at debate in the Senate that he noted the bill excluded the following from the collective bargaining process: law enforcement techniques; transfers from one position to another and appointments; appraisals; probation; demotions or discharges; conduct, including harassment; the basic requirement for carrying out the duties of an RCMP member or reservist; uniform, order of dress, equipment or medals of the RCMP. That is quite a list.

We know that through the Liberal government's motion on the Senate amendments, they have accepted the removal of all the exclusions to collective bargaining with their own amendment, that the government has increased the authority of the commissioner in an expanded management rights clause and that the government rejected a RCMP specific grievance procedure, which sends grievances through the RCMP act grievance system, unless it has to do with a collective agreement.

I look forward to hearing if RCMP members across the country find the government's response satisfactory. I also look forward to hearing from members of the House of Commons who sit on the public safety committee and from the senators who were involved in the legislation.

I would like to reiterate my support for the Supreme Court's decision and that I firmly believe RCMP members should be given a secret ballot to certify a union. I hope through today's debate that the government will reverse its decision of not accepting that amendment.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The RCMP received a pay increase of 4.8%, which brings members on par with the vast majority of police forces and in fact is comparable to the Ontario Provincial Police force, which has the same array of small town, remote, large city, and suburban policing responsibilities. Not only that but we now have some amendments that have been accepted on Bill C-7 that would ensure that the framework would enable RCMP members to bring to the bargaining table issues that are specific to the RCMP. Many of those are now being accepted and can be bargained.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of presenting a petition, just before this debate began, from close to 1,500 RCMP members and citizens asking that the government accept the Senate recommendations, save for the secret ballot. They apparently were not interested in that, which could be of interest to the other hon. member.

My concern is that we are looking at a framework for the RCMP that is aligned with the public service. I want to ask my hon. colleague whether she believes that the adoption of Bill C-7 has to reflect the competition the RCMP has with jurisdictional police forces, to which the force has been losing membership at an alarming rate over the last number of years, and whether our approach is going to give members the confidence to stick with the force.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 is a significant and historic movement forward in respecting and supporting the members of the RCMP. I am very proud that our government has been working carefully to ensure that we have the best possible regime for collective bargaining.

The Senate made significant changes to Bill C-7. It was not just a few words here or there. There were changes to a complex set of other bills that are implicated in Bill C-7, and we wanted to do a careful and thoughtful analysis of those changes to identify which ones we would accept, which ones we would amend, and which ones we simply did not feel were in the interests of the public or the RCMP members themselves. That is exactly what we did.

I appreciate the work the member for Elmwood—Transcona has been doing on this bill and other matters of public interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard the parliamentary secretary say, although something may have been lost in translation, that Bill C-7 originally passed the House on June 21. I am sure she may have said, or she meant to say, that it passed in the House on May 30 and it was sent back to the House by the other place on June 21. That means it is about 11 months since we have known the product of the deliberations of the other place.

It has been a very eventful 11 months with respect to the organizing drive for RCMP members. There was a lot of time before April 5 when the first application for certification was made by a prospective bargaining agent. The legal uncertainty created by the lack of an answer to the amendments proposed by the Senate has made it very difficult for those prospective bargaining agents to know what the rules are. Now we are faced with the situation that a bargaining unit has applied to represent only members in Quebec, while Bill C-7 proposes one national bargaining unit.

Could the parliamentary secretary shed some light on why it took the government so long to come up with a relatively simple response to the Senate amendments? Does she think it was worth the confusion that this has created for prospective agents and the challenges they face now?

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to go over the government's proposed response to the amendments to Bill C-7 from the other place. The government takes the responsibility to protect the safety and security of Canadians very seriously. We are also committed to supporting the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service. This is reflected in our proposed response to these amendments.

I have always been impressed with the professionalism of these individuals and their commitment to the communities they serve and protect. The members of the RCMP work with the community to prevent and resolve problems that affect the community's safety and quality of life. They are true role models and leaders. It is out of respect for these officers that the RCMP has introduced a number of measures to promote a healthy and respectful workplace. For example, in support of the 2014 amendments to the RCMP Act, several of the RCMP's human resources management processes, policies, and procedures were updated. Let me highlight a few.

The RCMP launched a new investigation and resolution of harassment complaints policy, which provides greater clarity and a single, streamlined approach for dealing with complaints. In addition, a process was introduced to address misconduct in a more timely and effective manner, and at the lowest appropriate level. Further, a new code of conduct was developed that specifically identifies harassment as a contravention of the code. This is complemented by the amended training curriculum that was put in place to specifically address respect in the workplace and harassment. Finally, an informal conflict management program was launched.

However, there is more. On top of these measures, in February 2016 the Minister of Public Safety asked the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to undertake a comprehensive review of the RCMP's policies and procedures on workplace harassment and to evaluate the implementation of the recommendations the commission made in 2013.

The commission has been reviewing the adequacy, appropriateness, sufficiency, and clarity of these policies, procedures, and guidelines. In addition, in July 2016 the Minister of Public Safety announced the appointment of Sheila Fraser as a special adviser. Her role has been to provide advice and recommendations to the minister regarding the application of various policies and processes by the RCMP.

The RCMP has made great progress with these initiatives, programs, and policies that it has implemented. These two reviews will be very valuable in helping the minister fulfill the mandate the Prime Minister handed him, to ensure the RCMP is free from harassment and sexual violence.

Bill C-7 builds on these good efforts to implement a robust labour relations regime for the RCMP. We believe we have addressed the concerns raised by the other place by increasing the scope of issues that can be bargained, while at the same time ensuring the operational integrity of the RCMP, which is so critical to its effectiveness.

Before I get to the details of our proposed response to the amendments to the bill, permit me to provide a bit of context. As we know, Bill C-7 creates a new labour relations regime for the RCMP members and reservists by amending the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. It has several key elements that reflect the clear preferences expressed by the RCMP members themselves during consultations with members held in the summer of 2015. Specifically, members were clear that they wanted a labour relations framework that provided for a single national bargaining unit, a union that is primarily focused on representing RCMP members, and the recourse of binding arbitration if a collective agreement cannot be negotiated.

Bill C-7 creates this very framework. If it becomes law, it would ensure that, if RCMP members choose to unionize, they will have an RCMP-focused, single, national bargaining unit, with binding arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism.

As it stands today, the labour relations regime that applies to the RCMP members does not meet all of these member preferences.

We introduced the bill in March of 2016. After a comprehensive committee study, the bill was passed with a number of amendments on June 21, 2016, and sent to the other place for review. We have taken the time to thoroughly analyze and carefully consider all of the Senate's amendments. Our proposed response addresses the most significant concerns of the other place by increasing the scope of issues that can be bargained. Our proposed response would align the labour relations regime that governs the RCMP with the system that governs other federal public service employees.

What is more is that our position respects the 2015 Supreme Court decision, which ruled that key parts of the RCMP labour relations regime were unconstitutional because they interfered with the rights of members to a collective bargaining process. That was the court decision in the case of the Mounted Police Association of Ontario vs. the Attorney General of Canada. Bill C-7 as originally proposed was meant to address this and our proposed response to the amendments would continue to respect this decision.

Our intent continues to be to provide the RCMP with a meaningful process for collective bargaining that takes into account the specific circumstances of the RCMP as a police organization.

Let us take a closer at how we propose to address each of the changes. Overall, members of the other place said the Bill was too restrictive with respect to the matters that could be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards. Issues such as harassment, transfers and appointments, for example, could not be brought to the bargaining table.

In this respect, the other place made several changes to the bill. It removed restrictions on what could be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards specific to the RCMP. It added a management rights clause to replace restrictions that seek to preserve the commissioner’s authority over human resource issues. The government agrees with removing the RCMP-specific restrictions on what may be collectively bargained.

Second, we suggest adopting a more targeted management rights clause than that proposed by the other place. Our focus is on the authorities the commissioner needs to ensure effective police operations. These two changes combined would have the effect of broadening the scope of what could be potentially incorporated in a collective agreement, thereby addressing the major criticisms of Bill C-7.

It would also ensure that the employer and any future RCMP member bargaining agent could engage in discussions on topics of importance to RCMP members and reservists who were excluded from the original Bill C-7.

Permit me to provide a few examples of subject matter that could be included in the collective agreement or in arbitral awards: first, general aspects associated with the appointment and appraisals of RCMP members; second, criteria and timing for conducting appraisals of RCMP members; and third, measures to mitigate the impact of discharges and demotions of RCMP members, including work force adjustment provisions.

As is the practice for other negotiations in the public service, Bill C-7 already allows for a wide range of other matters to be bargained and included in a collective agreement or an arbitral award. These include rates of pay, hours of work, and leave provisions such as designated paid holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, and parental leave.

Other amendments made by the other place removed restrictions that were consistent with restrictions that were already applied to other areas of the federal public service. Among these were restrictions preventing pensions from being bargained.

It also required a mandatory secret ballot vote for the certification of a bargaining agent representing RCMP members.

Finally, it expanded the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board.

However, our government does not agree with these changes, and we do not believe they are in the public interest. We propose keeping some limitations on matters that may be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards. Eliminating these restrictions would upset processes that have worked well for 40 years.

Since 1967, certain matters that are of broad cross-sectional impact across the public service have been excluded from bargaining and have been dealt with under other legislation to ensure the public interest is taken into account.

Take pensions, for example. Pensions for the rest of the public service are dealt with under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Pensions require a high degree of stability over time to assure pension plan members that their benefits are secure and will be delivered as expected. RCMP pensions compare favourably to other police organizations in Canada.

The federal government has traditionally consulted with employee representatives on pension issues, and is committed to continue this practise. In fact, when it comes to the RCMP, the government goes further. The RCMP Superannuation Act requires that an RCMP pension advisory committee be established.

This committee, which consists of RCMP regular members and representatives of RCMP senior management, makes recommendations on the administration, design, and funding of the pension benefits.

The RCMP is a national police organization, operating within the federal public administration. This is why the proposed labour relations regime for the RCMP was designed to align with the existing federal framework for labour relations and collective bargaining.

Let me now turn to the issue of certification.

Our government believes that there should be a choice between a secret ballot and a card check system. The secret ballot only system is restrictive. It is inconsistent with providing a fair and balanced process of certification, and properly recognizing the role of bargaining agents in that process. It also does not make sense to have the RCMP members subject to a different certification regime than everyone else, a more restrictive regime. It should be aligned.

We do not believe the certification of a bargaining agent to represent the RCMP members and reservists should be subject to a mandatory vote by secret ballot as the only option. In fact, our government's Bill C-4 puts the discretion of certification method back with the Public Service Labour Relations Board to decide whether there will be a secret ballot or a card check. The board will ensure the members' interests are reflected in the choice made.

Finally, we respectfully disagree with the changes that would expand the range of matters that could be considered by the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board.

There already are specialized grievance and appeal processes established under the RCMP Act to deal with such matters, so we feel it is unnecessary. In fact, such changes would undermine the Commissioner’s ability to ensure effective police operations.

I would also like to address the recent pay increase that RCMP members received. In April, the government announced a 4.8% total salary increase for RCMP members. With these salary increases, RCMP total compensation, including pensions and benefits, is in line with what is provided to the eight comparable police forces in Canada.

The comparators include local police services for the large majority of the Canadian population, in fact about 90%. The total compensation of an RCMP first constable is now 1% above the average of what is provided in these eight representative police forces. To give one specific example, the RCMP total compensation is now on par with the total compensation for Ontario Provincial police officers.

If RCMP members choose to unionize, Bill C-7 would provide a labour relations framework with the key features that the RCMP members have said they want. Under Bill C-7, future pay negotiations could occur with a single national bargaining unit that is focused on RCMP members.

Our government supports the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service. We continue to make progress in creating a labour relations framework that supports their collective bargaining rights. Our proposed response to the amendments of the other place will allow the employer and any future RCMP member bargaining agent to engage in meaningful discussion in good faith on topics of importance to RCMP members and reservists.

It is also in line with the government’s overall approach to restoring fair and balanced labour laws, and acknowledges the important role of unions in Canada.

In closing, let me express my gratitude to all the members of the other place who have helped in the development of this bill.

I would also like to acknowledge the hard work, and good work, of the House committee on public safety and national security. It gave the bill careful consideration and made amendments, which the government accepted.

While we do not accept all the amendments from the other place, its work has given us a better opportunity to improve Canada's labour relations regime for our RCMP and to serve the men and women who benefit from it.

Labour Relations

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present e-petition 599 signed by members of the public and the RCMP calling on the government to accept Senate amendments to Bill C-7.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the debate on the NDP opposition motion. Tomorrow morning the House will begin consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-37, the opioids legislation. Following question period, we will proceed to Bill C-7, the RCMP labour bill.

On Monday and Tuesday next week, we will return to debate on the bills just listed. On Wednesday we will resume debate on Bill C-4, respecting unions. In the evening, the House will consider the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development in committee of the whole.

Next Thursday, May 18, shall be an allocated day.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we will be moving shortly on Bill C-7 because it is important to respect and give the tools to members of the RCMP to be able to pursue their interests and stand up for themselves.

I can speak as someone who was raised surrounded by RCMP members and I have nothing but the deepest respect for the force. I am deeply and personally connected in the value and the extraordinary service the RCMP offers to this country.

I look forward to working with all members of the force to respond to concerns and improvements that are necessary.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia and across Canada are participating in the yellow stripe campaign to demonstrate how concerned they are with the future of the force. They are understaffed, work with outdated equipment, and are losing members to provincial and municipal police forces that pay better and provide better benefits.

Bill C-7, which would give Mounties a national voice through collective bargaining, has been stalled for almost a year. Could the Prime Minister confirm that the bill will soon return to this place? What will he do to reverse the poor state of labour-management relations in the RCMP?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are keeping the democratic reform dream alive. He has done exceptional work.

We are here today to talk about unfettered access to the House for voting and also how the House operates.

I want to go back to the orientation session that we all had about 18 months ago, when 200 of us were new members of Parliament. I was so excited in that orientation by the conversations I had with new members of Parliament from every party. We all said the same thing: that we were all here to work together collaboratively to make a better Canada. That is why we were here.

During that orientation session, the Prime Minister made a cameo appearance and said that the role of the opposition is to make government better. I wrote that down, being a new member sitting in opposition. However, in order for that to happen, government has to listen to some of the things that the opposition has to offer.

Then I took my seat in the House, as did all members. There are probably very few things as special as the first time we take our seats in the House and look around this building and think about the history that was made here, the traditions that came from the House, the fact that this is the home of democracy for Canada, the House of democracy, and that we need to set a shining example for how democracy is supposed to work for the rest of Canada. Certainly that was the expectation of the 107,589 constituents from Kootenay—Columbia who sent me here. It was to build Canada and to build democracy.

Therefore, it is somewhat unfortunate that we end up having to talk about unfettered access to Parliament and the lack of democracy that appears to be becoming more and more evident in the House. Quite frankly, in terms of access to Parliament, the debate should continue until all members are heard and debate collapses, rather than ending through the imposition of closure, which we are facing today.

What happened? I will go back to the situation that came up on March 22, 2017. The MPs from Milton and Beauce were prevented from getting to Centre Block to vote on the budget—which is a very important vote—because the RCMP stopped parliamentary buses from picking them up in order to allow an empty Prime Minister's motorcade to leave the Hill.

After the vote, the MP for Milton got up on a question of privilege, and the Speaker later ruled that indeed her privileges had been breached. Debate began immediately on the question of privilege. Not too long after that the Liberals, in a move deemed unprecedented by the Speaker, used their majority to shut down debate. The Conservatives then got up on another question of privilege to argue that the Liberal move denied the MP for Milton the opportunity to have her question of privilege properly heard. The Speaker ruled in their favour, which of course leads to where we are today.

We are keeping this debate going because we oppose what happened to the member and also oppose what is becoming a very heavy-handed approach by the Liberal government to changing the Standing Orders. Now they have given notice of closure on this current question of privilege, which highlights yet again an undemocratic approach to dealing with accountability in Parliament.

I find this quite disappointing, but it is not my first disappointment in my 18 months here in the House. Motion No. 6 was introduced around May 17 of last year. It was almost a year ago today that we were dealing with Motion No. 6, which was brought forward by the Liberal government and attempted to set in place a temporary set of Standing Orders to control what the House was going to be doing for at least the next two months. It proposed that the House would not have an adjournment time on Monday to Thursday, when debates would continue; that there would be no automatic adjournment for summer; that only the government could move motions to adjourn the House or have debates; and that there would be no need to consult with the opposition about when to adjourn for summer. The government could do it at any time.

This ended up being withdrawn by the Liberal government after what was a really dark day, quite frankly, here in the life of this Parliament, and after the Prime Minister apologized and the Liberal government withdrew Motion No. 6.

Democratic reform was another disappointment. I really felt betrayed when it came to democratic reform. I went around my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, I visited 14 communities, and I started every discussion this way: we are not here to discuss if democratic reform is coming; we are here to talk about the preferred approach to democratic reform and proportional representation. Every discussion I started was that this was not a discussion of if we were moving to democratic reform or proportional representation; it was how we were going to get there. I and hundreds of thousands of Canadians were really disappointed to see democratic reform, which was one of the primary focuses of the Liberal campaign, all of a sudden disappear almost overnight.

With Bill C-7, the RCMP are looking to have a collective voice across Canada. Bill C-7 came through the House over a year ago. It went to the Senate and came back to the Liberal government in June 2016, and we have heard nothing since then. The RCMP still does not have a national voice, which they very much need, to deal with a number of issues they have.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recently decided it was not going to deal with Bill C-51. In my riding of Kootenay—Columbia that was one of the major election issues in 2015, and it contributed to my riding for the first time in 21 years no longer having a Conservative member of Parliament. That is how important this issue was. There were rallies held across my riding opposed to Bill C-51, and nothing has happened with that so far.

Yesterday we saw what many who have spent much longer in Parliament than I considered a real disrespect to the leader of the NDP, who asked questions that were not answered by the Prime Minister, even though the Prime Minister was here in the room. That is a lack of respect for our leader.

For the past few weeks, I have sat here and heard the Liberals claim that they just wanted to have a discussion on how Parliament works, and now they are unilaterally forcing through changes. These changes will not make Parliament better and do not have the unanimous consent of the House, which is tradition. It is really quite fair that Canadians are asking whether these are being imposed just to make life better for Liberals and the Prime Minister, and if not, then why not negotiate and get consensus from all parties in the House in terms of how we are going to work here in the House on behalf of our constituents? Any time a government becomes less accountable, it is the citizens who suffer.

We are here in Canada's house of democracy, and I go back to where I started in terms of the orientation session when everyone I talked to from every party said they were here to work together collaboratively to make a better Canada in what truly should be a shining example for democracy. It has been quite disappointing to sit through the last seven days and see what has happened here in the House.

I truly believe the Liberal government needs to do better going forward. We need to respect democracy. We need to work together collaboratively here in the House. I look forward hopefully to seeing that happen.

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

There are discussions with legislators in the other place now, and we're moving forward with C-7.

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

I'm wondering first if you could illuminate us as to the delay on C-7 and why it's taken so long for it to come back to the House.

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

I haven't mentioned the other place, and—to their credit in this case—they did their work. They did it in June, and one of the reasons we were told that we couldn't consider important amendments to C-7 at the House level was because the sky was going to fall if we didn't get C-7 passed. We got it passed last spring in the House. It went to the Senate, the Senate completed its work before last summer, and then the bill disappeared.

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

When are you moving forward with C-7? Do you have a date when that's coming back to the House?

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

But Mr. Blaikie, we're moving forward with C-7 in terms of—

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

—and that is independent of C-7, but C-7 is an important step forward in terms of RCMP collective bargaining agreements.

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

Is the government waiting on C-7 to pass in order to pass judgment on the recommendation of the commissioner?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Blaikie.

First of all, we have tremendous respect for the work of the RCMP and the safety and security that they bring to us, and—as we've seen this week—the sacrifices and the risk in their work and on an ongoing basis.

You're aware of legislation C-7, which for the first time will provide the RCMP with collective bargaining rights and representation opportunities. It continues to be subject to the legislative process, but we believe it will move forward.

The request you refer to is under consideration, and—

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight to follow up on a question I asked the government some weeks ago that was based on the commissioner's broadcast put out to RCMP members in January this year. We are now in December. It was an update letting members know that in January of the previous year, the beginning of 2015, he had recommended a raise for RCMP members. He was letting them know, at that time, that because of the election and the new government, there was going to be some delay in processing that raise and getting a decision.

Of course, it has been well over a year since we have had a new government, and we have not heard anything about that raise. I will say that the minister, frankly, seemed surprised when I raised it in question period some weeks ago.

I am curious to know if we can get a further update on that, because what is going on here, and I think what is really frustrating for RCMP members, is that they are transitioning to a new system, or they ought to be, where they are represented by a union and these things, in terms of pay and benefits, are figured out at the bargaining table.

In the meantime, the old system recommended a raise, and the government is not going ahead with that raise, or if it is, it certainly has not let anyone know that it is. RCMP members right now are in the frustrating position of being denied their raise under the old system.

It has been a long time since they had a raise under the old system. With inflation and everything else, I think it is fair to say that their real wages have actually been going down. Even the old system thought that was a bad idea, which is why it recommended a raise.

The government, in the spring, refused to deal with good amendments presented by the NDP that would have removed certain exclusions in Bill C-7, which would set the framework for bargaining. It said at that time that it was really imperative that this law be passed or the sky was going to fall, there would be disorder, and there would not be an appropriate framework for collective bargaining for RCMP members, so it ran that bill through.

The other place came to agree with the NDP on the matter of the exclusions and moved that they be taken out. The bill was then sent back to the government from the other place, and then the bill disappeared. Therefore, there is not the framework the government promised for collective bargaining for RCMP members.

The bill, which it was so important to pass, has not come up in this entire fall session. It seems to me, given that there are only five or six sitting days left, that it is very unlikely to grace the House with its presence before we adjourn for the Christmas break.

RCMP members are in the very unenviable position of being denied the raise under the old system and being denied the framework to go ahead and pursue a raise at the bargaining table under the new system.

How can the government say that it respects RCMP officers, when it is denying them the raise they deserve under the old system and are refusing to bring forward the legislation that would allow them to go ahead and bargain a raise under the new system?

Labour Relations

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a petition, signed by RCMP members and their families, calling on the government to fix Bill C-7 and remove the exclusion of bargaining items they fought very hard in court to get the right to bargain for.

National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for her dedication to the protection of the essential civil rights and privacy concerns of her constituents and other Canadians as well as a strong security safety net.

The bill, like other bills, will go forward to a committee where there will be ample opportunity to make the case for why there might need to be changes, and there may be amendments proposed. There may be amendments accepted.

This government has already shown its willingness, for example, on Bill C-7, the RCMP collective bargaining, to accept amendments from the House committees. That is new. It is one way we are doing better than the previous government. As opposition members prior to the last election, we felt it was a waste of the abilities, intelligence and commitment of MPs to have us be in committees when there was no chance of amendments going through.

That era is behind us and there is an invitation to committee members to put forward their best arguments, discuss those and bring forward amendment, and who knows? It is possible that amendments will be accepted or not, but that opportunity is there and it has been shown to be there.

CANADA LABOUR CODE

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-4. I have been really discouraged as I have listened to the debate over the past eight or nine months. One of the themes that keeps coming up is that somehow private members' bills are illegitimate and that this is something that we were bringing through the back door.

We did a lot of consultation. Again, I would like to commend my colleague, the member from Red Deer—Lacombe, who put a lot of work into crafting this private member's bill that was passed in the House in a democratic process, through a vote, which I think is a fundamental part of this, that gave workers the opportunity to a secret ballot. It is disappointing that I have heard from my colleagues across the floor that these bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, do nothing more than force unions to bring forward useless financial information and that it is unfair to have a secret ballot.

For a government that campaigned on a foundation of openness and transparency, I find it very ironic that it is now, today, and has been for the last eight months, on Bill C-4, talking about how unfair it is to have a secret ballot and how unfair it is to ask unions to make public their financial information, financial information consisting of a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money that is tax exempt. I think the Canadian people have a right to know how those dollars are being spent, but most important, it is important that the workers themselves know how those dollars are being spent.

My colleague, the member for Carleton, did a phenomenal job of talking about the history of secret ballots and our labour relations program, but what I want to talk about today is what I find frustrating in terms of the priorities of the Liberal government.

Obviously, I come from the province of Alberta. Things are very difficult right now. It is difficult to see that one of the first things the Minister of Employment did when she came into government was to try to repeal legislation that we put forward to ensure that unions had open and transparent government and employees had the opportunity to a secret ballot. Things have only gotten worse in Alberta over that time and I have not seen our employment minister speak once about what is going on in Alberta and some of the things that the government could be doing to try to turn the situation around.

One part of the employment minister's title that has not been stripped from her role is “workforce development”. I think she has an opportunity to change her priorities from repealing what is good legislation to talking about getting Albertans and Canadians back to work. There are probably more than 100,000 energy workers now unemployed and looking for work. These are families who are having a tough time paying their mortgages, putting food on the table, putting their kids in sports, in hockey, and it is only getting worse. Employment insurance claims in Alberta are up 90% over the past year. The Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors has said that employment will be down 60%, from 2014 numbers. This is something that is going on across the country. I know we talk about the employment situation in Alberta being dire, that there is an 8.6% unemployment rate, which is the highest it has been in decades, but this is something that impacts Canadians from coast to coast.

It is very unfortunate that we have a Liberal government and an employment minister, specifically, who has really been missing in action on this. Her number one priority is repealing these pieces of legislation. I think that her priority and her focus right now should actually be on workforce development, which is one of her roles. One of those things that we could be doing in terms of workforce development is advocating for shovel-ready projects, things like the northern gateway pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline, things that will actually develop a workforce and get these unemployed Canadians, especially, Albertans in the energy sector, back to work.

When the Trans Mountain pipeline comes to cabinet, perhaps next month, will the minister be in that cabinet room? Will she be a voice for Canadian workers? Will she be a voice for Canada's energy sector? Will she be a voice for investment in Canada, or will she be just standing there, missing in action? Will she be a voice for and support the trans-Canada pipeline and get Canadians back to work rather than spending her time advocating for, what I feel, is a very low priority, which is Bill C-4?

I hope she has an opportunity to answer that today on how she will be advocating for the Trans Mountain pipeline when it comes before cabinet next month.

I look at Bill C-4 as a real step backward. Bill C-525 gave Canadian workers a chance for a secret ballot, which is I believe in vehemently. It is a cornerstone, a foundation, of our Canadian democracy. I am surprised that the Liberal government wants to repeal this.

Quite regularly now, the Liberal government is trying arbitrarily to make a change to a fundamental piece of our democracy, including now how we elect our parliamentarians. The Liberals are doing this with, we will say, consultations. They want to make a change to a fundamental part of our democracy without really consulting Canadians through a referendum. Why should we be surprised they would want to make a change to how unions could have a secret-ballot vote when they are going to make that same change to how Canadians elect their government? I find it ironic that the Liberals, piece by piece, are taking away the voice of Canadians.

It also shows, in my opinion, that when we spoke to Bills C-525 and C-377, we had very strong support from union workers. Some of our polling across Canada showed that as many as 86% of those polled supported this kind of legislation. To repeal that with very little if any consultation, I find very disingenuous. I do not think the Liberals have taken the opportunity to speak to union members and to get their feedback on that.

During the election last fall, I spoke to tens of thousands of my residents, and not once did this issue come up as a priority for the people in the riding of Foothills—not once. Certainly I had people talking about creating jobs and ensuring that our economy is strong, but I never had a single person at a door say to me that he or she would like us to repeal bills that encourage openness and transparency and give Canadian workers the opportunity for a secret-ballot vote. I would encourage the members opposite to tell me how often they had that answer at doors.

Bill C-4 is really about eliminating openness and transparency and removing the opportunity for Canadian workers to have a secret-ballot vote, which is a fundamental part of our democracy. To me, it is a cornerstone of what Canada was built on. It just seems backward for us to be taking away that right from Canadian workers.

Parliament is also discussing Bill C-7, which is a similar process for the RCMP. Are my Liberal colleagues on the other side of the floor also saying that they want to deny RCMP members the right to a secret-ballot vote when it comes to their opportunity to form or not form a union? I find this extremely disingenuous.

Looking through some data, what I find the most frustrating about this is that we are taking up some very important time in the House when we could be dealing with more important issues, such as employment and the economy. When we ask Canadians, we hear they support openness and transparency. When we ask Canadian workers, they say they support openness and transparency. However, it seems the only ones who do not are the members of the current Liberal government, which flies against everything they have talked about as we go through this.

The Liberals talked about consultation, which I do not believe has happened with Bill C-4. The more we sit here and talk about this, the more they delay a decision on the Trans Mountain pipeline; the more they delay a decision on the hearings on energy east; and the more they delay a decision on northern gateway, the ratification of the trans-Pacific partnership, and a softwood lumber agreement. On the really important things that the current government should be getting at and doing, it is not acting. The Liberals are spending their time pandering to big union bosses rather than pounding the pavement and helping to create jobs for Canadians who are struggling woefully right now.

In conclusion, I want to assure the residents of my constituency of Foothills that the Conservatives are fighting hard to ensure that they have a voice and an advocate for what they feel are most important: jobs, a strong economy, and their family.

Unlike the Liberals, who seem to think that workforce development is a bit of an oxymoron, we will be a champion for the energy sector, for small business, for Canadian investors, and for our farmers and our ranchers. These are the people who are creating growth. These are the groups and the folks who are creating jobs. It is not the union bosses. That should be the priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain.

I am very pleased to be speaking at third reading of Bill C-4. I wish I had had the opportunity to do it sooner, because this is a good example of legislation that ought to have passed through the House far more quickly than it has. It was a clear commitment of the government during the election campaign. There is multi-party support within the House to get it done. It has been reported recently, and it is quite true, that it has been a relatively light legislative agenda from the government. Here we have a piece of legislation that is not competing for time with other government bills, because there are not that many. It is almost a year into the government's mandate and we are still talking about repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. With the exception of those members who belong to the party that brought those bills in, there is virtually a consensus here in the House. If there was a bill that was going to move quickly through Parliament this would have been the bill. It is a bit of a mystery why it is we are still debating it almost a year out from the election when we should be passing it.

I know all the members in the chamber by now are quite familiar with what Bill C-4 does. It repeals two acts from the previous Parliament. One is Bill C-377, which was a kind of red tape bill for unions. It was based on the pretense that simply because union members get some money back on their taxes for the dues they claim, the government has the right to mandate that they make all of their expenses public to everyone. It was not being asked of non-profit groups, whose donors also receive money back. The government was not saying that because corporations get to write off expenses, which is money back from the government, their books should be made open. It was discriminatory in the sense that it really did just focus on unions, who happened to be, it is fair to say, an opponent of the previous government. Therefore, there was a sense that it was a politically motivated targeting.

There were many parties in the House that agreed the bill simply had to go. I am glad to see we are moving forward with that, although I believe we could move forward more quickly.

Bill C-525 from the last Parliament made it easier to decertify unions, and therefore, made it harder to have a higher rate of unionization within the federal workforce. We know from many studies that in the lead-up to secret ballot voting it did that in two ways. It raised the threshold of members in a workplace who would have to consent to have a secret ballot vote in order to certify and it took away the option to certify through a card check. Card check means members in a workplace sign a card affirming they would like to be represented by a union and which union they would like to represent them. If a certain threshold of workers sign cards, that obviates the need to go to a secret ballot vote because a majority, whatever that majority happens to be, in this case it was 50% plus 1%, have indicated their support for the idea of having a union in the workplace.

We know through a number of studies and research into this that in the lead-up to secret ballot votes there are often instances of intimidation by employers of their employees. That can lead to a change in the outcome of the vote. In fact, success with those secret ballot votes is often inversely correlated with the length of time between announcing the intention to vote and the vote itself. The longer the period between the stated intention of having a vote to certify and the vote itself, the less likely that vote is to be successful. We know that is often because it gives the employer more time to use certain kinds of intimidation tactics on their employees to make them afraid of certifying.

That is the package we are talking about getting rid of.

I have already spoken a bit about how I think it would have been better if we had been able to pass Bill C-4 earlier in the term. I am thinking of a few other related labour-type issues and legislation that we have been dealing with in the House. I am trying to learn a lesson about the new government and what it means for something to be a priority of the government, because if anything was a priority, if we look at election commitments, this was a very clear commitment. It was shouted from the rooftops by the Liberals during the election. A major part of their strategy for doing outreach within the labour world was that they were going to get this done.

This should be a priority. Why it is not done I cannot fathom. Some may say on the other side of the House that it is because Conservatives want to talk out the bill, but Conservatives were not in favour of Bill C-10. We were not in favour of Bill C-10. I believe my colleagues from the Bloc and the Green Party were not in favour of Bill C-10. Nobody else in the House except members of the government were in favour of Bill C-10, an act that has made it easier to export aerospace maintenance jobs out of Canada to other shores, even though that was not an election commitment, even though that came out of left field, and in an important sense was not therefore a priority of government, certainly not one of stated ones. I have not seen that on the list of any priorities of the Liberals, to make it harder to employ Canadian aerospace maintenance workers. That does not appear on any document that I have seen. If it does appear somewhere I would sure like to see it. Maybe we could have that tabled.

That was not a priority of government and that is signed, sealed, and delivered for the executives of Air Canada. That is done. This was a priority for Canadian workers, for labour activists, and a stated priority of the Liberal government, and here we are still talking about it when the ship for Bill C-10, which may be mixing metaphors, has long since sailed. I find that one hard to wrap my head around.

I think about another labour issue that has been before the House, Bill C-7, which sets a framework for RCMP members to bargain collectively. That had a Supreme Court imposed deadline. In fact, I think it is fair to say with hindsight that the deadline was used as an excuse to get that legislation through. We were told that maybe there were things that were not great about the bill, but it had to get passed by May 16 or the sky was going to fall and we were not going to be able to proceed in an orderly fashion with the certification of the union for RCMP members. That is what we were told. May 16 has long since gone by and that bill went to the Senate where amendments were made, but we have been back now for two weeks and I do not see when we are going to start talking about Bill C-7. If the government has a plan to bring that forward, I would sure like to know and I know there are RCMP members across the country who would like to know it is going to be brought forward.

There we have it again. Another priority of the government and it is sitting on the books, when legislative favours for Air Canada executives are what is really being rammed through and that is where the real priority of the Liberals has been. It is to get those things done that they never talked about, while things that have been on the books for a while and stated priorities of the government continue to languish. If there is a lesson in all of this, it is that it is not very good to be on the priority list of the government because it will launch consultations. They are not doing consultations on Bill C-4. They do not need to. That issue has been debated plenty in Canada and part of the decision that was made on October 19, 2015, was to reject that approach to labour legislation, but here we are. The same laws are on the books.

Part of what some people wanted and certainly RCMP members imagined was that when we had a government that thought about labour issues differently, it would be good for them because they would get an appropriate bargaining framework that they did not trust the Conservatives to deliver on. Yet the legislation that the Liberals decided to move forward with was almost a carbon copy of some of the worst aspects of the previous Conservative bill. Here we are. It is sitting on the books. I will say one last time in case anyone missed it, Bill C-10, which was not a promise of the government, which it did not consult thoroughly on, has passed. Government members talk about not moving forward with anti-scab because we do not have a robust consultation process. There was no robust consultation process for Bill C-10 and the sell-out of Canadian aerospace workers, so where was the ethos of consultation on that one?

The lesson learned is, God forbid something is named a government priority. It is far better to simply be a friend. Then the Liberals will get it done. If it is a stated priority for election purposes, the sooner the bill passes the sooner they have to stop talking about it, which means the sooner they have to stop reaping whatever political benefits caused them to make the commitment in the first place. That is disappointing. I hope we can end this debate, get this passed, and move on to some of the other things they said are priorities. Some of them are good priorities. It would be nice to do something about them rather than nothing.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely relevant and if the member stays tuned, he will find out why it is so relevant.

The legislation members are proposing, the opposite of this legislation, is trying to change ideas that came forward from the Conservative Harper government, that ultimately threw labour relations off balance. This is exactly what the New Democrats are proposing to do in the private member's bill. Like the Conservatives, they did not do their homework with respect to that private member's bill. There is a process which all of us should actually respect.

New Democrats would agree with me on the point that the labour legislation that the government has brought in, in many ways is repealing legislation that the Conservatives brought forward. We made reference, for example, to former private members' bills C-377 and C-525. Those were bills that, I would argue, were brought through the back door of the House of Commons through private member's where there was no due process, no real consultation that had taken place, but it met a political agenda. It was not sensitive in terms of the labour movement, in particular, but many different stakeholders were not properly or adequately surveyed and the question was not put to them.

It is the same thing with regard to both political parties. I believe we witnessed a new attitude toward the way in which government is treating labour laws and Canada's public service. All one needs to do is to take a look at some of the things we have done in a relatively short period of time.

Today we are talking about Bill C-5, which is a piece of legislation that would deal with a change that the former Conservative government brought in, in the form of an omnibus budget bill, where it changed sick leave requirements. There were no consultations. It was the government's position and it was interfering. It upset a great number of people.

When we were in opposition, we cited the reasons why we had a difficult time, let alone that the change was packaged in a budget bill. We believed, at the time, that it needed to be changed and voila, today we have Bill C-5. It is rectifying a mistake made by the Conservatives. I have made reference to the two private members' bills which dealt with issues such as the certification and other issues related to public disclosure. Again, we witnessed no consultation that actually had taken place. We had Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 brought in by this government in order to balance the scale.

I believe that this government has successfully portrayed that it is not only a government that wants to see a different attitude but has been very effective at implementing it. We hope things continue to go well with regard to Canada Post. I remember talking to postal carriers with respect to the former government, and saw an attitude of distrust in the government of the day in terms of having an arm's-length approach. That government was prepared to take certain actions even if it meant going against Canada Post workers. Our government brought forward legislation like Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 to deal with the issues of our RCMP, and allow collective bargaining in order to allow the RCMP to become unionized.

These are all very strong, positive measures that have been taken in a relatively short period of time. The morale of our civil servants is so very important. That is one of the reasons we are seeing that new shift in attitude, and we will see dividends coming from that.

I had an interesting discussion not that long ago with a constituent who was reflecting about how the morale is, in fact, changing within our civil service. They look to Bill C-5.

I see you are trying to stand up, Madam Speaker. I believe I will be allowed to continue when the debate next continues.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I disagree with the member's assessment. Our government has established a new attitude in its approach with unions. It is one of mutual respect. Whether it is Bill C-4, Bill C-7, the current legislation, Bill C-5, or the Canada Post potential strike and the negotiations around that, I wonder if she could reflect on those initiatives and at the very least acknowledge that in a very short period of time we have come a long way in establishing that new relationship.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Electoral Reform

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the member who just spoke, I find it kind of ironic that a couple of days ago we were discussing Bill C-7, and the members of the NDP were very emphatic that the RCMP could not have a secret vote. Yet one of the first parts of their motion is that they have a secret vote to elect a chair. I do not understand why it is good for them and bad for our government agencies, which are recognized worldwide, to have a secret vote. Maybe their learned members could answer that question for me.

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today for report stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

Governments, and especially new governments, have to set priorities and decide what they want to achieve during the length of their mandate.

Each party campaigns on a platform that is expected to serve as a road map for its early days as a government. Over the course of the campaign, parties make dozens of commitments. Upon taking office, a government must decide which commitments it wants to prioritize. A government must make decisions on what it wants to do right away, what it will do in six months, in two years, and what it will never do. On occasion, the Supreme Court will force the government to introduce legislation, as has been the case with Bill C-7 and Bill C-14.

Other pieces of legislation, like the budget, are presented each year. Because new governments like to check items off of the list of fulfilled campaign commitments during the first year, we often see legislation that reflects their campaign commitments. However, Liberal campaign commitments, like restoring mail delivery, have been pushed back on the priority list with the promise of consultations. Additional funding for the CBC has been pushed down the list of priorities because of a lengthy consultation process. A response to VIA Rail's proposal to build a dedicated track between Toronto and Montreal will take three years due to consultations.

It took the Liberals seven months to create a committee to enact consultations on electoral reform that is effectively identical to every House of Commons committee, and whose recommendations will be both non-binding and, like the preferred option of the Prime Minister, a ranked ballot.

The Minister of Transport has decided to spend an entire year consulting on the recommendations of the Emerson report, which was itself the product of 18 months of consultations with the entire transportation industry.

On so many issues, the Liberal government has pushed back making a decision to a later date.

However, with Bill C-10, we have none of that. What we have is a bill that came out of nowhere and was not the product of any consultations. Why is the government being so inconsistent?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport confirmed, during its second reading debate, that she was rushing this bill through so that the stakeholders could provide input during the committee stage. She was outsourcing her government's consultative responsibilities to committee. A parliamentary committee studying a bill is not a consultative body. Its purpose is to probe the bill for weaknesses and address these weaknesses through amendments if the majority of the members agree.

Witnesses at committee, including the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba, highlighted a number of obvious weaknesses in the legislation. The opposition proposed amendments to address some of these problems. In the case of Bill C-10, the Liberal majority did not accept any of these amendments to the legislation.

If the purpose of sending the bill to committee so quickly was so that the stakeholders could provide input on the legislation, then why did the Liberal members ignore the recommendations? This illustrates more inconsistency on behalf of the government.

While all of us support a regulatory environment that allows for a viable legacy carrier in Canada and affordable air travel, I do not think a single Liberal candidate campaigned on reducing Air Canada's maintenance obligations as they are described in the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Considering the government appears to be in no rush to do anything else, its incredible haste to get this legislation that came out of nowhere passed before the summer has opened up a pandora's box of questions. By now most members are aware that in 2013 the Government of Quebec, with the Government of Manitoba as an intervenor, brought Air Canada to court to challenge the carrier's assertion that it was fulfilling its maintenance obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Quebec Superior Court, presided over by Justice Castonguay, ruled on the side of the Attorney General of Quebec. Consequently, Air Canada appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of Quebec, and that court upheld the lower court's ruling in November 2015. On January 5, 2016, Air Canada announced that it would challenge that ruling in front of the Supreme Court. Less than two months later, Air Canada began negotiating with Quebec and Manitoba to end litigation, starting with the signing of a letter of intent to purchase 45 C Series aircraft. Whether Air Canada decided it would lose its appeal in front of the Supreme Court or the Government of Canada prodded it to make a purchase of the at the time troubled C Series aircraft, the carrier started to propose real commitments to keep some of its overhaul maintenance work in Quebec and Manitoba.

As the Government of Quebec has recently placed over $1 billion U.S. into the C Series program, it was obviously pleased to see Air Canada make the first major purchase of the aircraft.

This point cannot be made clear enough. Air Canada was forced to negotiate a settlement with Quebec and Manitoba because the carrier lost in court.

What Air Canada has proposed to settle its lawsuit in the case of Quebec is the purchase of the C Series and a commitment to undertaking maintenance of these aircraft for 20 years in the province. Air Canada also proposed to create a centre of excellence in aircraft maintenance in Quebec. In the case of Manitoba, Air Canada announced a willingness to transfer about 150 jobs from other parts of the country to Winnipeg. It is worth noting that these are not new jobs, merely work that is being shuffled from one part of Canada to another.

These Air Canada commitments to do maintenance work on narrow body aircraft in Canada are good, but these are not listed in the act we are debating today. Air Canada is making these commitments because it lost in court on the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

The Provinces of Quebec and Manitoba understand that if the law is repealed, as is being proposed by the Liberals, then their negotiating position with Air Canada will be swept out from under them. That is why both provinces explicitly asked the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities during the study of the bill to only allow this legislation to pass upon conclusion of their litigation against Air Canada. These calls came on deaf ears.

None of the Liberal members at the committee questioned the statements by Manitoba's deputy premier or Quebec's minister of the economy asking for more time, or attempted to justify the prompt passage of this legislation. The Minister of Transport's own officials also confirmed at committee that there was no legal or technical reason why speedy passage of the legislation was necessary.

Therefore, here we are. We have a bill in front of us that two provincial governments have asked for its coming into force to be delayed, and there are huge questions concerning why it is being rushed through Parliament so quickly ahead of the rest of the Liberal agenda.

We also have the problem that the Liberals are missing an important opportunity to make Air Canada and the entire aerospace sector annually more competitive. The Emerson report, which I mentioned earlier in my remarks, made a number of good suggestions that would stimulate the aerospace sector while maintaining jobs in Canada. For example, the government could tie all airport improvement fees to specific projects, explicit sunset provisions, which would ensure that these fees are to fund a specific project and not the airport's overall operations. They could look at overhauling the airport security model to mirror those used at major international airports, like London's Heathrow or Amsterdam's Schiphol, which have clear customer service standards and much lower delivery costs.

However, the bill does not do any of that, and we have not heard any indications from the Minister of Transport that measures to improve the competitiveness of the entire airline industry are forthcoming.

I look forward to questions from the government and opposition members.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be clear on a critical message. The Government of Canada is committed to supporting the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service.

Bill C-7 would allow RCMP members and reservists to choose whether they wish to be represented by an employee organization. The Conservatives have said they are going to vote against this legislation because they believe in the secret ballot. The New Democratic Party is going to vote against this legislation because it would not provide enough.

The very principle of this legislation would provide our RCMP officers and reservists with the option of organized labour. Why does the NDP oppose the principle of the bill that would allow for the unionization of our RCMP?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, and I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Burnaby South, who works very hard to defend workers' rights here in the House.

Like other members in the House, I want to take 30 seconds to congratulate our RCMP officers and to thank them for all the work they do across the country. They work hard to keep us, our communities, and our children safe. As a member of Parliament from the Montreal area, I do not deal much with RCMP officers, since they do not directly serve Montreal. The SPVM serves Montreal. However, we are aware of the good work they do and of how dangerous and essential their jobs are.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak about fundamental rights like free collective bargaining, a topic that is close to our hearts as progressive, social democrats, as New Democrats. This topic is especially important to us because gathering, assembling, and fighting for the collective bargaining power to improve one's working and living conditions is a fundamental part of social progress and of the progress of our societies and our country.

We have seen what a positive impact the process of unionization can have on people's quality of life in terms of pay and benefits as well as in terms of respect for employees and ensuring that they are not subjected to discrimination or abuse by employers or ignored whenever they speak up.

People say that right-wingers are about defending the middle class, but not many people realize that the middle class exists primarily because of the union movement. In the 18th century, when unions were illegal, people had absolutely appalling working conditions. They had no rights, and they worked like dogs for pay that kept them forever poor. People were constantly being pauperized. That is why we need to recognize the work of the many men and women who decided to join forces and sit down to negotiate collective agreements and labour contracts that laid out the rules of the game and ensured healthy workplaces that enabled people to support their families, enjoy some recreation, travel, and so on.

Unions became legal in Canada in 1872. However, RCMP members have been in a rather unique situation since the force was created in 1918. RCMP members have always been denied the right to organize and negotiate their labour contracts, even though this clearly violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right to free bargaining has been upheld by a number of courts, including the B.C. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada.

I am pleased, in one sense, that the Liberal government is finally bringing such a long struggle to an end. For decades now, RCMP members have been wanting the same right that everyone else enjoys. However, I am bitterly disappointed in the drafting of the bill and the work done by the Liberal government. Once again, we are in a situation where, in an effort to follow a directive or ruling from the Supreme Court, the Liberal government is trying to respond to it, but is doing so carelessly and sloppily. It is making things up and forgetting things, and as I think my colleague said earlier, this could give rise to new legal debates. Bill C-7 will probably be challenged in the courts because it contains things that are clearly completely unacceptable and infringe on the right to free bargaining.

Some of the clauses violate the very principle that this bill is supposed to defend. What are they? For us, the most important thing is the exclusions. Bill C-7 excludes some issues, certain matters, from the collective bargaining process. RCMP officers are being told that they have the right to organize and to collectively negotiate a work contract, but they do not have the right to talk about certain things and the government is the one that decides. They are being told that they only have the right to talk about pay and benefits, period.

What are the exclusions? One of them is staffing, the ability to decide who will get a promotion or who will be hired.

Deployment is another: who will go to what city, town, or region. Shift work is yet another: will workers have to work alone or will they have backup?

There is also harassment and disciplinary action. That is an important issue. The Liberals are excluding anything related to harassment in the workplace from the RCMP's collective bargaining process. RCMP officers will therefore be unable to file a complaint in that regard. That is outrageous. Why would RCMP officers be deprived of that option?

There is also disciplinary action. It was excluded out of hand and no one knows why, as though these sorts of things magically take care of themselves.

Whose idea was it to exclude these issues? They are what can make the difference between a happy and healthy workplace and a workplace rife with conflict, competition, poor relations between colleagues, and even poor relations between managers and employees.

The NDP does not understand why these issues, which have a major impact on workplace health and safety, were dismissed out of hand by the Liberal government.

What will happen? It is pretty clear, and the writing is on the wall. If this bill passes, when RCMP officers become unionized, they will eventually claim their right to talk about these issues and to have an internal complaint process so that they can have their say. Why would they be denied this right, when all other unionized police forces in Canada can talk about these issues?

In no way has the Liberal government shown that the reliability, neutrality, or viability of the RCMP would be called into question as a result of these collective bargaining issues and that they therefore had to be excluded from the process. This makes absolutely no sense. This will result in more legal proceedings and additional costs, not only for taxpayers, but also for the RCMP officers' union. This is all completely unnecessary, since we could fix this problem right here, right now.

I urge the Liberal government to listen to reason, instead of forcing Parliament to pass botched, flawed bills that will be challenged in court. I urge the government to do its job and to respect the fundamental right to free collective bargaining.

This issue affects an important, though small, segment of our society. There is no reason why these people should not have the same rights as all workers. The work they do is recognized and respected by everyone. I think that we should give them the tools that will help them create a workplace where they feel comfortable and are heard, and where they are able to speak up when necessary.

For these reasons, the NDP cannot vote in favour of Bill C-7, even though it is well-intentioned and even though the Supreme Court issued its ruling. We cannot support the bill because the government did a sloppy job and this bill will be challenged in court.

I want to use the few minutes I have left to say that I do not understand why, in this debate, the people from the Conservative Party, who dragged their feet miserably after the Supreme Court ruling was handed down in January 2015, keep coming back to the issue of having a secret ballot for the union certification process. That has nothing to do with Bill C-7. It is like they are trying to relive the years of the previous government, when, in fact, a unionization process involving membership cards signed and submitted to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB, is the best and easiest way to unionize a group. We often hear the Conservatives say that having people sign cards will lead to bullying and that is why they prefer a secret ballot. In the unionization process, any bullying is done by the employers and not by the workers. It is not documented and it does not exist.

I come from the union movement. In my previous life, I was a union activist and a union advisor. We know that a unionization process by secret ballot often leads to negative results for the workers. It is not as successful. The longer the vote, the more time the employer has to use blackmail or make promises or threats.

That is why we want to keep the current system. I would like our Conservative friends to understand that some day.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is probably one of the more absurd comments I have heard on the decisions.

The Supreme Court did not require the House of Commons to legislate. It said that existing law, both for Bill C-14 and Bill C-7, was unconstitutional, and if the House of Commons would like to legislate something else, this was the deadline by which it must do it. The Supreme Court suspended its judgment to a date to allow the House of Commons, if it so chose, to pass legislation, very much the same as what happened with the abortion legislation in Canada. When the Supreme Court ruled that abortion violated the security of the person, it gave a period of time for Parliament to act. Parliament tried twice to act and failed to pass any legislation. The world did not end, but the Supreme Court decision was implemented.

That is exactly what would happen on Bill C-14 and Bill C-7. The Supreme Court does not instruct Parliament to do anything. It gave us the opportunity to say that if we felt there were regimes or restrictions that would meet the constitution that we would like to put it place, we had this much time to do it.

I do agree with the member that the Conservatives wasted a lot of that time. However, the present government has wasted a lot of time calling all different kinds of bills instead of dealing expeditiously with those on which it feels it has a deadline.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in a response to one of the hon. member's speeches, I trucked out what I called blue herrings, raising issues about unions and policing that really nobody shared. I have never met a rank and file police officer who is worried about being intimidated over the question of a union, and all of the police forces have unions.

It is one thing to deny the existence of unions or their value, but it is another thing to gut collective bargaining, as the government is doing in Bill C-7. To me, those are equally difficult to accept.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his work on a day-to-day basis in the House as an effective voice for working people.

His question gives me an opportunity to say again what I think has happened in Bill C-14 and again in Bill C-7. I do not know where the Liberals get these restrictions they have introduced in both bills. I think Bills C-14 and C-7 alike are headed to litigation.

Rather than solving the problem and getting on with the business of the country, we will be sending people back into the courts on both of these bills. I do not understand why the recommendations in Bill C-14 were not those of the special committee. In Bill C-7, I do not know who made these recommendations. There is no evidence about why things like staffing and harassment were excluded from collective bargaining. I do not know where this idea came from, but I certainly doubt that it is constitutional.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, but I want to put a different spin on it.

We have talked a lot about unionization, secret ballot, and what is included in Bill C-7 for negotiations and what has been left out. However, the hon. colleague mentioned his experience in negotiating contracts at the municipal level.

In my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, our communities are struggling for the capacity to pay for increased policing costs. Ultimately, whatever costs are negotiated in collective bargaining are downloaded onto our provinces and our communities. In budget 2016, the Liberal government has failed to increase policing or any increased monies for police forces. Is this a further cause for concern and evidence that the bill and the government's point of view is flawed with respect to pushing this through?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I did see him in the precinct today, Madam Speaker. He now works for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, so he is still doing very good work.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision is what brought us to where we are today. It is interesting that the Supreme Court has very rarely overruled itself. It has very rarely overruled its previous decisions. In 1999, it had upheld the prohibition on an RCMP union, so I would say it was very unexpected in the legal community that there was such a clear decision in January 2015 in favour of the right of the RCMP members to unionize. It was a six-to-one decision at that time.

Let me read a couple of quotes from the Supreme Court majority in that decision. It states:

We conclude that the s. 2(d) guarantee of freedom of association 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.

It is saying that the regime that was in place, the staff representatives, did not provide what other Canadians were entitled to under the charter, which was to have a choice about who represents them and have those representatives be independent of the RCMP management in this case.

The decision went on to state:

While the RCMP’s mandate differs from that of other police forces, there is no evidence that providing the RCMP a labour relations scheme similar to that enjoyed by other police forces would prevent it from fulfilling its mandate.

What it is really saying is what we know to be true, that in order to have restrictions on rights in Canada, our Constitution requires that they be reasonable, demonstrably justified, and proportionate to some public interest. What the court found in this case is that there was no public interest that justified these kinds of restrictions on collective bargaining for the RCMP.

Quite often in the House, we have talked about “deadlines” set by the Supreme Court: in the case of assisted suicide and in the case of this bill on RCMP unionization. I have always argued, and will still argue, that these are not deadlines. What the court said in both of these cases is that it finds the existing laws unconstitutional, but it will give Parliament a chance to legislate if it wishes to do something different. If Parliament does not legislate by this date, then the law that was in existence will be unconstitutional and the normal legal framework will apply. If we did not pass this by the deadline, which we clearly have not, the RCMP would fall under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

I am not arguing that we do not need a bill. I actually think there are some justifications for having a bill and for separating the RCMP out from other labour relations associations. The surprise, or not surprise, I guess I would say, is that the Canadian Police Association and the Mounted Police Professional Association also agree with that. There is no demand for all of them to become teamsters or steelworkers. That is not what they are looking for.

Bill C-7 says that there should be one national union representing police only, and that is not really a controversial point, so having a bill that would establish that framework is not a bad idea. However, that is probably about as far as I can go with Bill C-7, because the other main provisions of the bill take away all the aspects that really make meaningful collective bargaining.

I would submit that, just like the bill that was presented on assisted suicide, Bill C-14, Bill C-7 is probably unconstitutional. It is certain to launch another whole round of litigation and will force the spending of both RCMP members' money and public money, as well as the court's time on something we really do not need to do.

The court decision was quite clear at six to one. If we respected that decision in the proposed law, we would be done with this. The new regime of labour relations could then get on with the job of improving the RCMP and the working conditions, including the health and safety of RCMP members. Again, we must remember that our constitutional regime says that the limits are acceptable on rights only if they are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, and if these limits are proportional to a specific public objective.

What is the public objective in saying that this new labour relations organization could not talk about staffing, deployment, harassment, or discipline? Again, in the quote I read earlier from the decision, it is very clear that the court said that there is no public objective that justifies limiting collective bargaining for the RCMP. Therefore, I would argue that, in parallel, there is also no public objective being achieved by these specific exclusions from collective bargaining.

I do not think we have heard from the government why it selected these things. I have not heard the justification for these exclusions, and the Liberals have not given me a legal argument of how they think this would stand up in court, if we get there again. As I said, I think Bill C-7 is bound for litigation, and that is an unfortunate thing.

Our courts are clogged with all kinds of important issues, and to have their time taken up with something that has been there in 1999 and 2015, to have it back sometime later this year or in 2017 is a waste of everyone's time and resources.

I, of course, as a member of the NDP, supported our position that these exclusions should have been taken out at committee stage. Unfortunately, the government failed to do that, and I believe the Conservatives also supported leaving these exclusions in. However, I will give credit to the government here that it did agree to remove clauses 40 and 42, which would have placed occupational health and safety under workers' compensation boards province by province.

Clearly, there are some exceptional things about the RCMP as a workforce, and it would not have been acceptable to establish a regime where RCMP members, depending on where they were stationed, would be eligible for different kinds of compensation, benefits, or rehabilitation. Therefore, I do applaud the government in agreeing with both the Conservatives and the NDP to take out clauses 40 and 42 and keep occupational health and safety a uniform regime across the country, so that it would not really matter where an RCMP member served, because RCMP members would be entitled to the same package of benefits and protections.

When we talk about staffing, deployment, harassment, and discipline being excluded, what does that actually mean? This is where I go back to all four things I dealt with almost 20 years ago when I first took on being the labour relations representative of my police board.

Staffing is the question of how much work one has to do, whether the vacant positions are filled, and how long is acceptable to leave positions vacant. I know from the RCMP in my own riding on the west shore, where the population was growing and the demands were very great, that there was concern from rank and file members over those four positions that they should have had, that were authorized, but I believe took six years to fill, and it could have been longer. My memory does not serve me so well, because it was so long in actually getting the people they needed.

What impact does that have on the operation of the RCMP? Well, one could say that it causes it to spend more money or it takes away management prerogatives. However, I can tell members that, from the point of view of rank and file people, staffing is about how much overtime they have to work that they do not want to work, that they would rather spend with their family, or rather spend, as most RCMP officers do, volunteering in community events. They wonder if they would be forced to work overtime because those vacancies have not been filled.

This is not to say that the new union of the members would fill the vacancies or decide when they are filled, but they might be able to argue in bargaining what a reasonable time frame would be when a position is not filled. They could say in their collective agreement that, when a position is vacant, it must be filled within six months or within a year. Why is that not something they could bargain about? It is something certainly that I bargained about with our police union: what is an acceptable time frame for filling vacancies?

I simply do not understand why that would not be subject to collective bargaining for the RCMP.

The second one would be deployment. The question of deployment was that of relief and backup, in particular, in municipal forces, How many officers per car? Was it safe to have one officer per car, or did it require two? Through negotiations, after I left the board, it was finally resolved that there were different hours of the day that required different deployment and staffing.

However, what we got through collective bargaining was the input of those rank-and-file members who said that in the daytime it was probably okay to have one officer per car because there were a lot of people on duty, and a lot of resources and backup to call on. However, at nighttime, one person in the car, at three a.m., was probably not a good idea. That was what we were discussing at that time. Again, I do not see how that does not do anything but contribute to better policing for the community and better working conditions for the RCMP, to be able to discuss deployment.

The RCMP also has a lot of very small detachments. One of the big problems that comes up in those detachments is relief. If the RCMP officer is the only officer or one of two officers in a community, how does he or she get any relief from the 24-hour a day demands? What would be wrong with negotiating that if he or she has been the only one, or the only two officers, for a certain period of time, then someone has to come in and relieve the officer of those duties? That would be discussed at collective bargaining. Again, it is about better community policing and better working conditions for RCMP members.

The question of harassment is the one that is the most shocking to me. We dealt with harassment in the police force. When I was appointed to the board, I was the first openly gay police board member in British Columbia. We sat down with the union. First, I had met with the chief, and I said “Just so you know, my mother already knows.” The chief said, “We already know. We are not called the police for nothing.” We got off to a very good start by having harassment training.

The union met with the board, and we agreed to do harassment training. No one forced anyone to do training. The Board members said that they would go through the training first, and would then ask the union to agree to go through it.

The union president at that time said that it was a complete waste of time. At the end of it, he came back and said that he was wrong, that there were practices taking place in our force that he did not even recognize as harassment.

The last one is discipline. When there is bargaining about discipline, it is not saying the rank-and-file members get to decide if someone is disciplined. They need a voice on what is a fair process for discipline and a voice on what is fair representation.

Those are the kinds of issues with which I had to deal. What are the right time frames? What evidence should be available? Are police officers held to the legal standards of the court in their own disciplinary proceedings? Is that fair or should there be some other disciplinary process agreed to?

Again, all four of these things that are excluded are crucial to having a good working environment for RCMP rank-and-file members, and they also contribute to better policing of our communities.

I know my time is drawing short, but I want to talk about one more staffing issue which has been on my radar since I first got involved in policing. It is the question of recruitment and retirement. It will probably come to a shock to most members in the House that one out of ten police officers in the entire country is currently eligible to retire tomorrow. Officers are staying on and working because of their dedication, but they are already eligible to retire.

How will we deal with that crisis of person power in the RCMP? One of the best ways to do that is to work with the members of the RCMP who are serving now and ask them what are reasonable ways to conquer what is really a crisis.

The other one is recruitment. At the beginning there was some resistance, even in our police force, to using diversity as a criteria in recruiting. We worked with the union at the time. Again, the same union president came back to me and said that when I said that we were not a very diverse police force—we were are all white men—that this was obvious. What was not obvious were the benefits that would come to policing from having a more diverse police force.

They hired two people from the first nations community and two gay and lesbian police officers. He told me that they now had contacts in communities that they never had before, and it helped them do a better job of policing.

Again, negotiating with the rank-and-file unions about issues of staffing, like recruitment, retention, and retirement, will lead to better policing for all of us.

I am sorry I cannot vote for the bill that would establish a framework for a union for the RCMP, but my reason for doing that is the unacceptable exclusions from collective bargaining.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start in a way that almost all members have when they began speaking to Bill C-7 and express my thanks to the RCMP for the work its members do every day in our communities and at the federal level in policing to keep us safe. We have one of the most dedicated and skilled police forces anywhere in the world, but it can be improved. It can be better.

I know it is going to get better because, like others who have already spoken, I know one of the new people out front this week. He is one of the people I met as a young leader when he was in high school in Esquimalt; he eventually became our house- and dog-sitter, and now he is out front as a new RCMP officer, defending this House instead of our house at home.

I have also seen the RCMP at work in my own constituency. The West Shore RCMP polices over half of my riding, by geography, with 65 sworn members, and it was fortunate enough to get four added in 2015, which did a little bit to catch up with the population growth. I have a riding that is growing very rapidly in population, and it is most rapid in the areas policed by the RCMP. They always have a challenge in keeping up with that.

I personally have also seen the RCMP at work as part of UN peacekeeping missions. I served in East Timor, where the RCMP played a very important role in training the new police force that was being established in that country, and it did a really excellent job, which was well respected by others who were also involved in police training. I also saw the RCMP at work in Afghanistan when I was part of an international human rights mission there, and I saw the very difficult task that Canadian RCMP members had taken on in trying to help train the Afghan police in a real absence of a tradition of independent and rights-based policing like the one we have in Canada.

I think there are some 84 RCMP members who are serving on UN peacekeeping missions around the world at this time. So like everyone in the House, we do appreciate the service of the RCMP and its dedication.

I am also familiar with the issues of policing because I taught criminal justice for 20 years in a program at Camosun College in Victoria, which is largely a police and prison guard training program. Many of my former students have gone on to be RCMP members. At very large demonstrations or walks in my riding I have been talking to some of the police, and once someone came over and asked if I was in some kind of trouble and offered to help. I said that, no, they were my ex-students and I actually knew the police and there was no problem.

I am probably also one of a very small number of members in the House who sat across from a police union as the employer in bargaining, so I started my public career as a member of a municipal police board. As a member of the police board, I drew the short straw, as we all thought it was, and I was assigned finance and collective bargaining. I actually did sit across from the police union of a very small municipal police force and hashed through the kind of issues that are of concern in the RCMP today. Therefore, I know something about that from personal experience, and I will come back to that.

As the NDP public safety critic for the last five years, I have worked very closely with the Canadian Police Association and also with the Mounted Police Professional Association. They have been very concerned to make progress after the Supreme Court decision almost a year and a half ago now toward getting organization in place to represent the rank and file RCMP. I want to credit the work of both Tom Stamatakis as president of the Canadian Police Association and Rae Banwarie as president of the Mounted Police Professional Association for working with all members of the House in trying to make sure we get the right kind of legislation in place.

There is a long history of controversy about police unions in this country. It stretches all the way back to when the first unions were certified, and that was in 1918, I believe, although I have not been teaching this now for a number of years. Toronto and Vancouver both certified unions for their police in 1918. We went through a series of strikes including the general strike in Winnipeg, a police strike in the U.K., and a police strike in Toronto. It ushered in a period of regulation of police unions and attempts to restrict rights to bargain and rights to strike. Up to World War II, we had periods of greater and lesser freedom of police to unionize, in all areas but never the RCMP.

At the end of World War II, in 1945, I think largely as a result of the idea that we had fought a great war for democracy and freedom, very large collective bargaining rights in the public sector began to be granted, including the Toronto police union, which was again certified as a bargaining agent for the Toronto police in 1945. That movement really grew over the next 20 years, until virtually all the police forces had unionized, except the RCMP.

In the 1960s, when public servants were granted the right to have unions, even to strike under some circumstances, the RCMP was specifically excluded. Therefore, what we are really dealing with today is that exclusion that was written down finally in law in the 1960s.

By the 1970s, there was already discussion about whether it would not be better to allow RCMP members to decide for themselves if they wished to have a union, rather than to keep them under a legislated prohibition. A predecessor here, the former MP for Burnaby—Douglas, Svend Robinson—I think it was in 1979—introduced one of the first bills calling for the removal of the restriction on the right of the RCMP to unionize.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member listened to my speech and is well aware of my position with respect to this bill generally and with respect to unions more generally. Unions have an important role to play and it is certainly important that this Parliament respond to and indeed implement the Supreme Court decision with respect to RCMP entitlement to collectively bargain. There is no dispute around that, and of course Conservatives have been constructive throughout this process of Bill C-7.

However, good intentions are not enough. Good intentions in terms of implementing this process are not enough when there is this huge problem, what I would call for me a poison pill in this legislation, which is the refusal of the government to respect the right of those who play a critical function defending our democracy, standing up for our political and democratic rights; and that they would not be given the right, through a proper democratic secret ballot process, to be involved in determining whether to form a union and exactly which union they would form. These are important issues, and I just cannot vote in favour of legislation, however good some parts of it may be, that has that kind of lack of respect, I would argue, for this important Canadian institution.

If the government is keen on getting consensus, I hope the Liberals would consider even at this late stage working on a possible change for this legislation that would make it more supportable. However, at this stage of course the government has the votes to pass this legislation if members come for that vote. I cannot support legislation that contains such a significant problem for our democracy.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to join this important debate on Bill C-7.

I appreciate hearing the thoughtful comments from all members in this House, especially the contribution of members like the member for Yellowhead who just spoke, who have significant experience themselves, or, in other cases, experience through their families with the RCMP. We are all very grateful for their service and for the context that members coming from different walks of life bring to this place.

For people elsewhere who may have just started watching this debate, I want to start my remarks by reviewing some of the basic groundwork in terms of what this bill does.

This legislation seeks to implement a Supreme Court decision that opened the door for the RCMP to form a union. We, in the official opposition, respect the decision of the Supreme Court and recognize that RCMP members are entitled to pursue membership in a union.

We think there are many aspects of Bill C-7 that are positive. In general, it is a reasonable response to the court ruling.

However, on this side of the House, we have consistently taken a very clear position on the importance of a secret ballot. I will talk more about why a secret ballot is important in this specific context and in general. However, that is the principle stumbling block on this legislation for those of us in the official opposition.

We think there are a lot of good things about this legislation, but it is not acceptable to us that a mechanism would be created for joining a union, for electing officials, for anything of that nature, that does not involve a proper democratic process.

Also, by way of context, it is important that the public knows that wage disputes will still be resolved through binding arbitration. This does not open the door to police officers being on strike or anything like that. That is an important element of context as we approach this legislation and the discussion around it.

As we are talking about the RCMP, I want to acknowledge the important work that RCMP officers do across this country, especially in my riding of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. We do not have municipal police forces in my constituency. We are fully served by the women and men in the RCMP, and the great work that they do.

The RCMP is an icon. It is one of those recognizable Canadian icons around the world. At the local level, I have personally seen the great work that the RCMP does with the community. That is not just front-end policing, but also engaging in a constructive way with members of the community and with community organizations on issues like education, crime prevention, and those kinds of things.

I am very grateful for the contribution of the RCMP in my constituency and across the country, as well as here on Parliament Hill. We are supported in our work and our functions here by the security that members of the RCMP provide.

I talked earlier about the importance of the secret ballot for us. It is surprising that the government does not get it. I have said before that I would have thought that the debate on the secret ballot was concluded in the 19th century. To coin a phrase, it is 2016. It is strange that there still is no recognition by the government and by other parties of the importance of the secret ballot.

I will say that it is not only this bill but the process that brings this bill forward that marks a double attack against democracy. We not only have an attack on the principle of the secret ballot, but we also have the government not respecting the prerogative of members who wish to speak to the bill by moving forward with their overly aggressive approach to time allocation.

I do think there are appropriate uses of time allocation, of course. These are cases where maybe opposition parties are engaging in deleterious tactics. The government does, in certain contexts, have to move legislation forward. However, in a fairly short time, we have seen the government ramping up the scales on the use of time allocation or closure. This bill is no exception, in spite of the goodwill from the opposition and the effort to work constructively on allocation of time around these things.

We have had this on the euthanasia and assisted suicide bill, and on the budget bill. With regard to this legislation, which is under the gun of time allocation, what the government is doing here is perhaps not as egregious as we have seen in some other cases. I have mentioned. Bill C-14 as one of the most difficult and challenging issues that Parliament has dealt with in a very long time. However, there is still a failure to recognize the importance of the secret ballot and the prerogative of members wanting to speak to and have a fulsome debate on legislation like this. It is a concerning pattern that we see of the government not respecting the principles that should be very important to a well-functioning democratic polity.

That puts this in some important context. On the substantive side, as we talk about the issue of the secret ballot, I want to start by talking about responses to some of the different kinds of arguments we have heard today in this debate, and some of the specific issues around the secret ballot in the context of the RCMP. After that, I will talk about some of the underlying foundational and motivating arguments about the secret ballot and why secret ballots are important. Again, I do not think these are arguments that should have to be made, but clearly they need to be made.

In the context of this specific bill and the RCMP, I want to talk specifically about secret ballots in the context of government certification. We can look at the workplace in some sense as a sort of negotiation, maybe a competition, between workers and their employers. There are certain tools that workers have, and there are certain tools that employers have. It is worth acknowledging that in that sort of imagined competition, public sector workers have an additional advantage. They can bring public pressure to bear on the government to try to bring about concessions in the process of collective bargaining or other forms of negotiation over wages. This is a strategic advantage in that competition or relationship that does not exist in the private sector.

A group of private sector employees cannot organize to vote out their employer, but that is something that public sector employees can do. Therefore, there are additional tools that are available to the public sector. That needs to be recognized and acknowledged as we talk about these dynamics. That helps us to understand the history of why there are higher levels of unionization in the public sector, and also why every certification vote in the public sector has happened via secret ballot, which has led to these higher rates of unionization. There is this strategic advantage.

To the extent that members may raise concerns about employer intimidation preventing certification, it would have to be acknowledged that it is much less plausible in the context of the public sector, again because of these strategic dynamics. Taking that into consideration, it is difficult to justify not allowing a secret ballot in this specific context. The worries that might exist around this in other sectors could be plausibly applied in the case of the public sector.

One of the other strands we have heard in this debate is members saying that a secret ballot could still happen, that, after all, the legislation does not effectively prohibit the use of a secret ballot but simply leaves that determination to a subsequent discussion and evaluation. That is true. There is nothing in this legislation that prohibits the use of a secret ballot. It is possible that a secret ballot could be used or not, but I do not think it is good enough. If one believes that a secret ballot is important, and I think members would acknowledge in many cases how critical a secret ballot is, I do not think it is sufficient to say that there might be a secret ballot.

If I told my constituents that in the next election some ridings in Canada will have secret ballots if we determine they need them and other ridings will not have secret ballots if we determine they do not need them, I do not think my constituents would be particularly satisfied with that. They would say that if a secret ballot is the most fair, honest, reasonable, and democratic way of conducting an election, then why should that not be available to everyone? Why should it not be a guarantee instead of just a possibility? I do not think the argument that there might be a secret ballot holds much water.

We have had some discussion in this debate about the extent to which the RCMP is like the rest of the public service and the extent to which the RCMP is different. It was interesting. I listened to the speech of my friend from Oakville North—Burlington. In the context of questions and comments, she effectively gave very different answers to that question, first in response to my question, and then in response to a question from the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. She said on the one hand that we need to have the same process as other public sector individuals, and then she said the RCMP is different. Which is it? This would be our take on that.

Certainly there are important differences between the RCMP and other organizations within the public service. That is why it was important to have some of the variations, some of the exclusions, which were put in this legislation. I think at least our party and the government acknowledged the importance of those exclusions, and our members worked very hard at the committee to refine and deepen those exclusions.

However, the secret ballot is important for everyone. We would advocate a secret ballot in all cases, as we have done on a variety of different measures. The principle of a secret ballot for choosing representatives, for choosing which bargaining unit, or if an individual would like to associate with a particular bargaining unit, is so important that it should not be left to chance. It should not be maybe sometimes and maybe not elsewhere. That is why we have advocated for this consistently across the board.

As well, it is particularly important to have a secret ballot in the case of the RCMP. These are, after all, the women and men on the front lines who are defending us, protecting the physical security of our democracy. We call on the RCMP to ensure the safety and stability of the democratic process and of our lives within this country. For us to then deny the RCMP the same rights that others have in other contexts when they elect people, to deny them the right to the secret ballot in this case, would seem particularly perverse, to me at least. At the same time that they are protecting our fundamental democratic rights, that we would deny those rights to them as members of the RCMP— notwithstanding that we think the secret ballot should be available to all—in that particular situation is quite perverse.

The discussion has also been around the alternative to the secret ballot and how that would look in practice in the RCMP. Some members favour a card-check system. For those who do not know, a card-check system basically involves some members who are seeking a certification asking other members of a potential bargaining unit who want to certify to then sign and check on a card that they would like to sign up. If a certain threshold is achieved in terms of these sign-ups, then there is no subsequent process of deliberation or election; the certification simply then occurs after that card-check system has been evaluated. It occurs automatically.

There are a lot of obvious problems with that. This is a form of public ballot. It does not respect the privacy of the individuals who are being asked to sign. However, a card-check system, as has been pointed out, is particularly inappropriate in the context of the RCMP. We have a very hierarchical structure in which people have to rely on each other all the time.

Members of the RCMP may wish to discuss their political conviction in the context of that environment. They may feel comfortable doing so, and they may feel that their ability to work with their colleagues is not compromised by that. However, that should be their choice. The effect of having a card-check system for certification in this context would be that members might be forced to declare their union convictions through other members. This could have a negative effect, in certain cases, on the collegiality that is so important for the functioning of our national police force.

Therefore, why not simply ensure that members have the privacy they deserve? Why not ensure we have a guarantee of a secret ballot?

My friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke said something interesting. He said that the proposal for a secret ballot does not need to apply in this case because we are not talking about a public vote. He said that in a sense individuals could choose whether or not they want to join the organization and therefore there is no need for a secret ballot, if I understood what he was saying correctly.

Of course, it just needs to be said that we are talking about what would be a closed shop union. If the RCMP chose to certify, all members of the RCMP, even if they were individually not interested in being part of the union, would have to at least pay dues to the union. This is the process that exists. This is not analogous to simply whether or not an individual chooses to sign up with the local Rotary Club, or Elks, or something like that. This is a question of a whole professional group being brought into a union, potentially against the preferences of some of those members. This is more analogous to a general election in which we would respect and widely recognize the importance of a secret ballot.

Another comment that some members have made during this debate is that secret ballots reduce the rate of unionization. Frankly, that tips their hand a bit because the goal should not be to ensure the maximum level of unionization. The goal should be to ensure a fair process whereby workers can decide if they want to be part of a union. Of course, one could design a system, maybe a card check or something else, that would maximize the rates of certification, but if that happens at the expense of a fair and democratic process in which workers can actually express themselves, then that is not the best direction to go. The goal should be a fair process, and then we would let those who are involved in a fair process decide. A fair process in a democracy will produce the best outcome according to democratic principles, but if we do not have a fair process just because we want a particular outcome, that being higher rates of unionization, that is obviously hardly fair.

That deals with some of the strands in the debate today. I want to just mention what I see as the foundational motivating arguments for a secret ballot. Why do we generally accept that secret ballots are important? First, I think we all understand that people have a right to privacy with respect to their political opinions. Of course, people have the right to express their opinions on issues like certification and other issues, but they also have a right to not express their opinions, to not wish for their co-workers, their employees, even members of their family to know how they vote or how they feel about difficult political questions. This right to privacy really emanates from the idea of autonomy, the idea of self-ownership, that our political opinions are our own and therefore we have the right to decide if we wish to dispose of them in one particular way or another. This sense of the separation of the private space from the public space is foundational to our concept of liberal democracy. It is why we have a secret ballot.

Of course, the secret ballot ensures protection from reprisals. I talked before in the House on a previous bill about the history of secret ballots and how one time when we had public ballots people could be intimidated. They could face reprisals, or could lose employment as a result of how they voted in the then-public ballot. Thus we moved to a secret ballot.

Another reason we have secret ballots is protection against corruption. If we see how someone votes there is a greater risk of someone being offered an inducement. That cannot happen if there is a secret ballot.

Finally is the importance of a vote being preceded by deliberation. This is not possible in the context of a card check system, where someone might sign the card and then read an article or develop new information and think something different later on. One does not have the option of changing one's mind in a card check system but in a secret ballot process there is deliberation, debate, good discussion, and then individuals can come to their conclusions at the appropriate time.

For these reasons, despite some good aspects, I will have to oppose the bill unless the government accepts an amendment to respect the right of members of the RCMP to vote by a secret ballot.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the 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.

Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all RCMP members, both past and present, for their service and putting public safety before their own safety every day.

I had the opportunity to speak to the bill when it was at second reading. In my speech I stated that we supported Bill C-7 going to committee, where we would ask the government to amend its legislation to explicitly allow RCMP members the right to vote on whether to unionize through a secret ballot.

I respect the Supreme Court decision that RCMP officers are entitled to bargain collectively. The purpose of Bill C-7 is to satisfy this ruling and ensure the RCMP has the framework in place to bargain collectively if its members so wish.

If we look to the court's decision, we will see that employees' choice was the cornerstone. It is my opinion that a secret ballot is the most appropriate method of ensuring members have that choice free of intimidation and negative ramifications. A lot of young and new members may feel unsure about how they are supposed to vote when they are working in a ranked structure. Their management in the field detachments is older than they are and will have an understanding that is different from theirs.

Many members across the force want to see change. Speaking from personal experience as a former RCMP member for 35 years, people tend, especially in police roles, to be very private about individual concerns due to the chain of command structure in the police environment.

However, with a secret ballot, members would have the ability to vote honestly on whether they wished to unionize without fear of ramifications. That is why I believe it is very important that members feel secure in their decision that the choice should be something members are able to reflect on in private.

I will not be splitting my time after all, Madam Speaker. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has a lot to say. I will take the full 20 minutes and leave him 20 minutes on his own. I apologize.

As promised during the second reading of the bill, our Conservative Party requested in committee that C-7 be amended to require secret ballot certification. I was very disappointed that the government was unwilling to make this essential change. While I support the intent of the legislation to allow the RCMP to collectively bargain, I cannot support the bill as it is currently written. In the certification process for a bargaining agent, a secret ballot should be in place to allow all members to freely express their own opinions.

The Supreme Court judgment was silent on the method of choice in that it did not clarify whether the certification process should be by 50% plus one majority or by secret ballot, and that is too bad.

It has been argued by other members that the principle of a card check should be upheld as a sufficient and appropriate method for the RCMP, because that is how workers in the private sector and other federally regulated groups will decide on collective bargaining once Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act passes its final reading.

We do not use a show of hands or a public petition in our democratic elections, nor should we in the workplace, especially in this set of circumstances.

The right to peaceful association is granted to workers through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the unmitigated right union leaders feel they have to represent a particular workplace is not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This leadership is something that must be earned from the membership. Union leaders need to remember that representation is contingent upon workers placing their trust in the particular union of their choice through a democratic selection process.If union membership can elect its national president or any of its executives, directors, or leadership by way of a secret ballot, then in all fairness the workers should be afforded the very same right to have a secret ballot during the union certification process.

The right to be able to vote one's will free of intimidation or threat is a fundamental freedom and a right that should be extended to all workers. That is why when we were government we passed Bill C-525, the employees voting rights act, which required that certification of bargaining agents under the Public Service Labour Relations Act be achieved by a secret ballot vote based on the majority.

As noted earlier, Bill C-4 would reverse the procedures for the certification of bargaining agents that existed before Bill C-525; that is back to card check.

It has been argued that the RCMP, a public service, should not be treated any differently from other groups of workers. If it is good enough for every other federally regulated group to certify under a card check system, then it should be good enough for RCMP members.

I would like to remind my colleagues that the requirement to unionize was a consequence of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. It was not a consequence of the majority of RCMP members wanting this type of method to govern the way they protected themselves.

Following the court ruling, the government launched a consultation process that took place over the summer of 2015. It consisted of a survey, town halls and video conferences. With over 9,000 members completing the survey, there was a clear expression that they would like a regime designed specifically for the RCMP. They did not want to be lumped in with other civil servants.

The government needs to realize that the RCMP is a police force with a unique role and a unique chain of command structure. It is clearly different from other federally regulated groups and therefore should be, in my view, treated differently. The RCMP should have the ability to decide whether to unionize through the most appropriate method for it, not for another group. Members deserve a secret ballot.

Recognition of this should have been taken by the government in order to realize the RCMP was not like other federal departments. However, the Liberals have refused to amend Bill C-7 to allow RCMP members the right to vote on whether to unionize through a secret ballot. Therefore, I cannot support the bill.

I am extremely proud of the RCMP and its members, and to have served in that organization myself. Its members risk their lives every day and should hold great pride in serving Canada's police force. The least we can do is give them the right to vote, free of all intimidation, on whether to unionize.

Earlier today there was talk about the staff relations program, which was brought in in the early 1970s. Unlike some of the comments that were made with respect to it, it was a program wherein the representatives were voted in by the members. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, it negotiated in good faith with the management of the RCMP and Treasury Board, and it provided strong representation to the members. We remained in the top three police forces per pay and benefits for many years under that program.

Somewhere throughout the1990s and 2000s, when things got tight in all governments, the system declined and the pay and benefits of the members of the RCMP declined with the cuts made by the Liberal government and by the Conservative government afterward.

The unionization of the RCMP is profoundly different than any other union that has ever been formed in our country. It is a legislated requirement. I do not believe any member in the House could stand before me and tell me of any other union in Canada that was formed by a legislated order and members told that they had to vote but not it could not be a secret vote. Right off the bat that is intimidation by the government down to the people in the field.

Yes, there are groups in the RCMP across Canada that want to see a union. Other members do not want to see a union. However, the one thing they all will agree on is that they are at the bottom of the police totem pole when it comes to salaries and benefits.

I mentioned earlier that in the 1970s, 1980s, and even into the early 1990s, we were always part of the top 10 police forces. In fact, we did not even recognize the police forces that ranked 11 down to 50-something. We only looked at the top 10. Staff relations negotiated to keep us in the top, and it kept us in the top three for many years.

However, today the RCMP is ranked 56th. It is a sad situation for Canada's national police force to be number 56 on the totem pole of police forces. It should be in at least the top 10, and it should be in the top 3. It is Canada's police force. It is Canada's international police force. It is internationally recognized as one of the best police forces in the world. Yet we are only paying its members at the bottom of the scale.

It was mentioned earlier that a survey was done in 2015 to determine how the members of the RCMP felt about unionizing, or to determine if there were concerns with respect to people representing them in some type of bargaining. Approximately 9,000 members said that they needed a better system. That is only roughly one-third of the membership.

Clearly, from speaking to the members of the RCMP who are stationed in my community, many are uncomfortable about the fact that the RCMP may become unionized. They are proud to serve their country. A lot of them joined the RCMP for one specific reason: not to be in a unionized organization. They wanted the freedom to serve and not be controlled by an internal organization. Now they will have to vote in that regard.

I just want to state an opinion here, which is this. If they voted against it, would we be back here in another year and a half when another group challenges it through the Supreme Court?

I want to talk a bit about the discomfort of the members in the field. I am talking about western Canada specifically, eastern Canada, those members who are stationed in small detachments. I will give a brief example of what I mean by small detachments. It could be a detachment of two members, with a corporal in charge. It could be a detachment of six members, with a sergeant in charge. It could be a detachment of eight members, with a sergeant and then a corporal. That is how the rank structure works within the force. As the numbers go up, so does the number of NCOs in the detachment. A staff sergeant would command a detachment of 14 members with one sergeant. Once it gets up to 18 or 20 members, there are two sergeants and then there is a corporal.

However, the problem is that the members all work together to protect their communities, to protect the safety of the people within that community, and to protect each other's safety. They go out there, as mentioned earlier by other members, and they are the first ones at the scene. They are the first ones to go to the shootings, the violent assaults, the fatal accidents. They have to work hand in hand with each other. How can the Liberals expect a young constable in, for example, a staff-sergeant detachment with a staff sergeant, two sergeants and two corporals, to vote, when he has to vote in front of them on the way he thinks it should be, knowing they or the other constables that he works with may feel totally different from how he does? However, he has to stand up there and wave his little card and vote. Do they think he is not going to be intimidated? Members will be completely uncomfortable about voting on whether they should become unionized if they have to vote in front of their peers.

The thing that is very unique about the RCMP, and very similar to fire departments, is that the rank and file in the smaller detachments, going even to an inspector's detachment, which comes in at 50 people, or a superintendent's, which comes in at 100 members, work hand in hand. Those members deserve the right to decide whether they want to unionize, but they should also have the right to vote privately and secretly so that they do not put themselves in an awkward position with their peers, with their supervisors, and with their buddies with whom they work side by side, with whom one day, or even the next day, they may have to go back to back in a scuffle in a hotel. Sometimes it is hard. One member might be mad because a guy voted the other way and might not work as hard as she or he should.

It is a dangerous precedent that we are setting here. The RCMP, fire departments, and even police departments are unique. They are a proud lot of people who go out there to fight for their communities, to keep their communities safe, and to keep each other safe. However, their pride is individual. They are proud of serving an organization, but they want to make their important decisions on their own, and we would take that fundamental right away from them. We should not. We must look at that aspect of it.

I cannot support the bill, simply because we would not give the members of the RCMP the right to vote secretly on the decision of whether they want to unionize.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that has become very clear as we have talked about the RCMP is how unique it is.

We certainly heard that during our committee hearings, and there is not a one size fits all for the RCMP. It is a unique police service that serves a unique function across the country. I do not think we can treat every aspect of the RCMP in the same way that we treat the public service.

The members of the RCMP are deserving of this legislation. There is no doubt that they deserve to be able to form a union. We feel strongly that they should be subject to Bill C-7 and that this bill should pass quickly.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question about what the member just said. She said she thought the RCMP should fall under the same regulations as other public servants and yet that is not what Bill C-7 would do. It would take away fundamental issues from bargaining that in any other workplace would be bargainable, things like harassment in the workplace, staffing and deployment issues. Bill C-7 would actually take those away from RCMP members.

Really, from my point of view, everyone would be better off if this bill did not pass because then the Supreme Court decision would place the RCMP under the same regulations as all other public servants.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of Bill C-7. The bill before us today would uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years, but it is a right that has not been given to the members and reservists of the RCMP, individuals who over the past 143 years have contributed so much to our proud, strong, and free nation.

As the Minister of Public Safety said when he appeared before the public safety committee, RCMP members are dedicated to their work and to serving Canadians and they must perform their jobs while often facing immense challenges and very real dangers. He stressed that it is important that our government support the work of our RCMP members and take all proper steps to ensure they can exercise their charter protected freedoms, including freedom of association. In fact, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations imposed on members a specific form of employee representation called the staff relations representative program. This program was found to be unconstitutional as it was not independent of management and RCMP members could not choose the employee association that represented them. Moreover, staff relations representatives were limited to giving advice. Management still had the final decision.

Bill C-7 is a clear and reasoned response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the case of Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Attorney General of Canada. The Supreme Court found key parts of the current RCMP labour relations regime unconstitutional. In particular, the court struck down the exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of “employee” in the Public Services Labour Relations Act. The court also held that a section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, 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 staff relations representative program did not meet the criteria necessary for meaningful collective bargaining. Therefore, the court held that this violated the charter right to freedom of association.

Bill C-7 would provide RCMP members and reservists their independence and freedom of choice in labour relations matters while recognizing the unique operational reality of policing.

The bill in question is a product of careful consideration of the results of consultations with key stakeholders. The first was with regular members of the RCMP through online and in-person consultations. The second was with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that have policing agreements with the RCMP.

Bill C-7 has a number of important features. First, it provides for independent binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process for bargaining impasses. Consistent with other police forces across the country, the members of the RCMP bargaining unit would not be permitted to strike. This was the strong preference of those members who participated in the 2015 consultation. The bill 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. Again, regular members showed clear support for these provisions. The bill also excludes officers appointed to the ranks of inspector and above from representation in the union. Finally, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be designated as the administrative tribunal for matters related to RCMP member and reservist collective bargaining, as well as for grievances related to a collective agreement.

The board, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, would also be renamed to reflect the addition of RCMP member and reservist collective bargaining to its jurisdiction. In making recommendations for appointment to that board, the chairperson would take into account the need to have two members with knowledge of police organizations.

Bill C-7 was introduced on March 9. After second reading, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security carefully studied the legislation.

The committee heard from numerous witnesses, both labour and management, and had a fulsome debate on the legislation. These witnesses spoke about the opportunity this legislation would provide to create improved working conditions and the importance that RCMP members placed on representation. As a result of their testimony, the committee amended the legislation to remove clauses 40 and 42, which dealt with health coverage for members.

There were concerns expressed about these clauses by almost every witness who testified. I am proud to be part of the committee that listened and, as a result, improved the legislation before us today.

I share the concerns expressed by some witnesses about harassment in the RCMP. The mandate letter of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness states that he will take action to ensure that the RCMP and all other parts of his portfolio are workplaces free from harassment and sexual violence. Through conversations with the minister and his staff, I know that the minister has made it a priority to address harassment in the RCMP.

One of his first acts last February was to ask the chairman of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission to evaluate how the force has responded to his 2013 recommendations. Since concurrence at report stage, the extension given to the government by the Supreme Court of Canada to put in place a new labour relations regime for the RCMP has expired. Given this, the delay in passing Bill C-7 could have numerous adverse affects. As it now stands, there is currently an overlap between the RCMP Act and the Public Service Relations Act regarding grievance procedures, which could result in confusion and conflicting interpretations.

The longer the delay, the greater the uncertainty among RCMP members regarding proposed labour relations and how it could apply to them. This is why we must show our support for the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service. It is incumbent upon us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due by passing this legislation, so I invite all of my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said in my remarks, I can speak with some first-hand knowledge about the importance of those members of the federal public service who have fought long and hard to achieve important workplace goals. These are not just goals that are an end unto themselves; they are goals that assist in the protection of our communities and the law enforcement of the land. These are completely legitimate goals and those that are consistent with their fundamental rights under the charter. Bill C-7 is all about ensuring that the RCMP members and reservists are able to avail themselves of their section 2(d) rights under the charter.

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

Madam Speaker, the short answer is that we on the government side do not start with the assumption that there will be any duress or coercion. Rather we start with the assumption that employees and the RCMP membership will work collaboratively with their supervisors and upper management to achieve collective workplace goals.

The notion that a secret ballot is the only way in which free, fair, and full collective bargaining can take place is refuted by the example that is applied right across the federal public service. There are many other bargaining agents, both in the public service as well as beyond in the private sphere, where members stand and are counted in an open and transparent way. That is also consistent with what Bill C-7 proposes to enshrine.

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

Madam Speaker, I do agree that there are a number of things that the bill would propose to exclude from the realm of collective bargaining. As I said during the course of my remarks in favour of it, the exclusions that are proposed are very much consistent with those that apply to all of the other collective bargaining agents across the federal public service.

With respect to the RCMP, I also want to take a moment to emphasize that there are many central issues that relate to workplace collective goals that they will be permitted to bargain over. That includes things like pay, benefits, and leave. These are matters that are of vital interest to the RCMP membership. They have expressed a very strong desire to be able to negotiate on these issues and Bill C-7 will allow them to do just that.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Could my colleague elaborate on something that was raised by those who analyzed the bill? This was alluded to earlier in this debate on Bill C-7. As a result of the exclusions in the bill, some things cannot be brought to the bargaining table with the employer.

Can my colleague tell the members of the House why RCMP employees would not have the right to negotiate certain things, as they will be excluded from the negotiations, while other police forces across Canada have the right to negotiate similar items during negotiations with their employers?

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I should say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Oakville North—Burlington.

I am very pleased to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-7, which is an important piece of government legislation intended to recognize and give life to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining.

I want to take a moment to reiterate some of the comments made by hon. colleagues with respect to the RCMP. It is a world-class police service. In some respects it is very unique. It is the only police service in the country that provides protection and law enforcement at the municipal level, at the provincial level, and at the federal level, as well as internationally. It provides important services and protection for our communities and our country with respect to national security and terrorism. It provides protection with respect to monetary enforcement and fraud. It provides day-to-day protection for many of the local communities, including first nations and indigenous communities, right across the country.

As a former federal prosecutor and having played an important role in law enforcement, I know that I speak on behalf of my constituents, and hopefully on behalf of all members in the House, when I thank them for the service and sacrifice they are prepared to make every day.

Bill C-7 represents a watershed moment in the history of the RCMP. As I mentioned before, I was the president of an association representing the working interests of federal prosecutors and Department of Justice lawyers. I know first-hand how important the collective bargaining process is to provide employees with meaningful input in pursuit of their collective goals.

The purpose of Bill C-7 is to accomplish exactly that fundamental objective. From the point of first principles, it will do so in the following two ways. First and most fundamentally, it will provide RCMP members and reservists with the freedom to choose whether they wish to be represented by a bargaining agent. Of course, historically, all RCMP members were statute-barred from engaging in collective bargaining. However, the bill would remove that statutory prohibition, thereby giving members the opportunity to organize and associate under the auspices of a bargaining agent.

Second, assuming RCMP members and reservists choose to avail themselves of the opportunity to organize, Bill C-7 will also afford them with the ability to choose which bargaining agent will represent them. Once certified by the federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board, this bargaining agent will have the capacity to collectively pursue workplace objectives.

As RCMP members and reservists embark on these two key decisions, I want to underline that Bill C-7 will ensure that they are able to make their choice freely and voluntarily, and in a manner that is independent of management.

Consistent with these two principles, our proposed legislation will also provide for a single, national RCMP bargaining unit composed solely of RCMP members appointed to a rank, and reservists; require that the RCMP bargaining agent have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members; and statutorily exclude certain officers, as well as other managerial and confidential positions, from representation, as is the case across the federal public service.

As I alluded to, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be designated as the administrative tribunal for matters related to RCMP member and reservist collective bargaining, as well as for grievances related to a collective agreement. In making recommendations for an appointment to that board, the chairperson of the board must take into account the need to have two members with knowledge of police organizations. Both the board and the Public Service Labour Relations Act would be renamed to reflect the addition of RCMP members and reservists to collective bargaining and to that inherent jurisdiction.

Finally, the bill before us today would establish independent binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process for bargaining impasses, with no right to strike.

These are some of the highlights of what Bill C-7 sets out to accomplish. By no means is my summary exhaustive, and indeed there are many other detailed amendments that will have to be enacted in order to create this new regime in which RCMP members and reservists will be permitted to collectively bargain.

Let me say a few words about the broader historical context in which Bill C-7 has come to be presented in the House.

The proposed act is, in effect, a legislative response to a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada issued more than a year ago in January 2015. In that year, at that time, the Supreme Court of Canada released a case called Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General). The court made a number of key findings flowing from that decision.

Among other things, the court struck down the exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of “employee” in the Public Service Labour Relations Act as unconstitutional.

In addition, the court held that sections of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those regulations established the staff relations representative program as the labour relations regime for RCMP members. The aim of the program was that, at each level of hierarchy, staff relations representatives and management consulted on human resources initiatives and policies, with the understanding that the final word always rested with management.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that the staff relations representative program did not meet the criteria necessary for meaningful collective bargaining. RCMP members were represented by an organization they did not choose and did not control. They had to work within a structure that lacked independence from management. That process failed to achieve the balance between employees and the employer that is essential to a meaningful collective bargaining structure. Accordingly, the court held that this violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in particular the right to freedom of association guaranteed under section 2(d).

The court suspended its judgment for one year to give the government time to consider its options. The government sought an extension and was given an additional four months to introduce legislation in the House of Commons that would provide a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists. The government took steps, including consultations with RCMP members in the summer of 2015, to bring this framework into compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling.

I pause here to note that the consultation process was robust. Town hall meetings, teleconferences, and video conferences were conducted right across the country. A survey was also conducted, with thousands of members having participated and over 600 pages of comments received and reviewed. I believe that the input provided has been reflected in the drafting of the bill.

Bill C-7 passed second reading, as members know, and was given due consideration by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The government has the utmost respect for the parliamentary process and for the role of committees in our system of government.

I am happy to say that changes, which were recommended in light of witness testimony and written submissions, were both discussed and approved by the committee. I would hasten to add that while the bill does include exclusions with respect to collective bargaining, those proposed exclusions are very much consistent with the rest of the public service where collective bargaining is permitted.

I also wish to point out that, aside from collective bargaining, there are other avenues that RCMP members and the bargaining agent can access to pursue their workplace goals. For instance, the labour-management committee is a forum where employee representatives and management can discuss issues collaboratively around the process for conduct and harassment. Those issues can be discussed and strengthened in that forum. Safety concerns with uniforms that are worn by members of the RCMP can also be discussed in the occupational health and safety committee. There they can study the issue and make evidence-based recommendations.

I also feel it imperative to emphasize that Bill C-7 permits collective bargaining on issues that are related to more than just pay and benefits. Leave and conditions of work, for example, can be collectively bargained, as well as matters that pertain to the National Joint Council directives on workforce adjustments.

As members can see, the purpose of Bill C-7 is to usher in a new labour relations regime for the RCMP. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the suspension of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision has now expired. As a result, this issue is of even more urgent importance.

Delaying the passage of this new legislation raises numerous problems. For one, there is currently an overlap between the RCMP Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act in grievance processes, which could result in confusion and conflicting interpretations. In addition, RCMP members could be represented by multiple bargaining agents, making it difficult for the RCMP to maintain a coherent, national approach to labour relations.

Passing the legislation would avoid confusion and uncertainty among RCMP members. We owe this to the men and women of the RCMP, as has been expressed before the House, who protect Canadians on so many fronts.

The bill before us today gives the RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due and I know that all hon. members are committed to supporting the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service. That is why I encourage all members to vote in favour of the bill.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is odd, I hear my Conservative colleagues making speeches and I get the impression that they are not talking about Bill C-7 so much as the former Bill C-525, which forced a secret ballot for union certification processes.

The NDP believes that the ability to form a union is a fundamental right and that RCMP officers deserve to have the same rights as the members of the other unionized police forces in Canada.

I would like my Conservative colleague to say a few words about that. Why does he think that RCMP officers should not have the same rights as members of other police forces in Canada?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George for sharing his time with me today.

I rise to speak to Bill C-7, but I would first like to thank all members of the RCMP for the incredible service they provide to our country not just from coast to coast to coast but across the globe. RCMP members are stationed all over the world, and they provide incredible service to our country and its residents. I am 100% supportive of the RCMP for what it does. I have tried to encourage my son to become an RCMP officer because of the pride and tradition the RCMP brings to our great country.

I would like to start with just how we arrived at this point, and my hon. colleague brought this up earlier. Since 1974, RCMP members have worked under a non-unionized labour relations regime in which the staff relations representative program, the SRRP, has been the only body recognized by management that represents the interests of employees. Despite the consultative role of the SRRP, management has the final word with respect to HR matters.

Section 2(1)(d) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act excluded RCMP members from unionizing. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada that the existing labour relations program violated the rights of RCMP members under section 2(d), freedom of association, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the ruling in January 2015, the government was given one year to pass new legislation. In January 2016 that deadline was extended to April 2016.

Bill C-7 would allow members of the RCMP and its reservists to collectively bargain. According to the bill's summary, it would create a process for an employee organization to acquire collective bargaining rights for members and reservists and include provisions that regulate collective bargaining, arbitration, unfair labour practices, and grievances.

The certification of unions speaks to the three requirements it must meet. It must have a primary mandate, the representation of employees who are RCMP members. It cannot be affiliated with a bargaining agent or other association that does not have a primary mandate of the representation of police officers, and it cannot be certified for any other group of employees.

Bill C-4, and this is what I find to be somewhat disturbing, would strip employees of their right to a secret ballot, and I will speak more on that later on. On the certification and decertification of unions, the combination of Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 would leave RCMP members without a secret ballot vote on future union drives, and it runs contrary to my view, that of giving workers the right to a vote that is free of intimidation prior to being forced to join, pay dues, or be represented by a bargaining agent.

With respect to collective bargaining, the bill would restrict what is up for bargaining. The collective agreement cannot include any term or condition that relates to law enforcement techniques, transfers, appointments, probation, discharges, demotions, conduct including harassment, basic requirements of RCMP duties, uniform order, or dress.

Given the unique nature of the RCMP, there are several aspects of that part of the bill that I certainly agree with, such as postings, uniforms, demotions, conduct, etc., and the increase in the size of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to 12 from 10 and the requirement that at least two of those members have knowledge of police organization. It also speaks to dispute resolutions and grievances.

As I said earlier, one of the things that is somewhat disturbing to me is the fact that there would be no requirement for secret ballots.

The legislation was really watered down when it came to Parliament. I supported it at second reading because I thought there was more work that could be done at committee, and I was very glad to see that there was. With respect to clauses 40 and 42 of the legislation, it was actually amended, in large part because of a push on the part of our Conservative members of the committee.

With respect to the legislation itself, obviously this side of the House respects the Supreme Court of Canada decision. One of the things we do not respect, and I do not personally respect, concerns the right of an individual to have a secret ballot. I was president of a firefighters' union for 30 and a half years. I can say that everything was done with a secret ballot. I believe fundamentally and principally in the right of an individual to maintain a secret ballot, especially in an organization like this, because one of the unique natures of being a police officer or a firefighter, particularly a young firefighter or police officer, is the fact that one is on a career path and often some of the decisions made can have an impact later, on every aspect of one's career.

As the member for Durham said, it is one of the fundamental tenets of democracy. All of us in this House have been elected as a result of a secret ballot. The Speaker of the House was elected on a secret ballot. Leaders of political organizations are elected on a secret ballot. The irony of this whole thing is that, as I stated in my comments, not only are RCMP officers charged with protecting us domestically and protecting Canadian interests around the world, but they often go into new democratic countries and are there to ensure that the democratic process is adhered to. I think that is sometimes forgotten around here. Many times, RCMP officers will go to new democracies in Africa and in Europe and will actually be there to ensure that individuals' right to a secret ballot, free of intimidation, free of coercion, free of influence is ensured in those democracies. The irony I find in this whole process is the fact that RCMP officers are not being given the very right that they go and protect in faraway lands. That to me is a complete irony.

Why is it that the Liberal government would ensure we are seeing not just a continuation of Bill C-4 in Bill C-7 with respect to the secret ballot? That is up to speculation, but if one were to be a good speculator, it could be nothing more than just political payback to the promises that were made to the union leadership with respect to the last election, which was that there were going to be secret ballots.

Having been a union president myself, I have first-hand experience and I can say that there is some element of intimidation, especially, as I said earlier, with young police officers or young firefighters. They sometimes do not know what they do not know. When they get into a situation where they are voting or are in a process of unionization, it can be intimidating for young firefighters. In my involvement in the firefighter movement, at one point I was intimidated by the process of which I was not really aware. The fundamental right of the secret ballot is something that is Canadian. It is not just something that belongs in this legislation for RCMP officers, but it is something that is fundamentally rooted in Canada.

There are several aspects of this legislation that we are supporting but one that we cannot support, based on a fundamental principle of having a secret ballot. The fact that it is not in this legislation is something that I cannot support. I support 100% our RCMP officers, the men and women who protect our country and Canadian interests abroad, but this legislation in some ways is flawed, and I cannot support it.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today talking about Bill C-7, which is a fundamental piece of legislation that will hopefully see our RCMP ranks on equal footing with other unionized employees. I think we can all agree that we want to make sure that our everyday rank and file have all rights afforded to them.

Our argument and position on this side is that the decision of a few, of a single small group, would impact 28,461 members of the RCMP. That is wrong. Why not give the 28,461 members of the RCMP, the brave men and women who put the uniform on every day, face human tragedy and run toward danger, a say on whether they unionize or not?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is not that we do not support the unionization of RCMP members. The fact is, Bill C-7 is such a stripped down piece of legislation that it would not allow our RCMP members, our everyday rank and file, to negotiate simple things, such as staffing, scheduling, or workplace harassment.

One other item is that we trust the 28,461 members to make life-and-death decisions every day. However, the Liberals will not trust that these members are able to vote or have a say on whether they want to unionize. It is not that we are against it, but we are against the non-secret ballot. Allow these members to have a say on whether they want to unionize.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it unfortunate that the Conservatives have decided to vote against Bill C-7, given the importance of allowing our RCMP members to organize a union for collective bargaining purposes. I am a bit surprised. On the one hand, the member says that the Conservatives stand behind the members of the RCMP, but on the other hand, the Conservative Party would not support the unionization of RCMP members, which is something other law enforcement officers are already able to do.

Why does the member believe that not supporting the unionization of the RCMP is a good thing for its members?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to stand before this House and once again speak to Bill C-7, as it deals with our brave men and women of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

As I stand today, I was looking over my previous speech. I think it is incumbent that we do that once again. We should always remember the sacrifices, not only of our veterans but of those who put their uniforms on and run toward danger every day when others would run away.

RCMP members are moms, dads, sisters, and brothers. They are volunteers within our communities. They coach minor sports. They work with charities. They contribute to the health and wellness of our communities, not just when they have their uniforms on but every day.

We spoke previously of the legend of the Mountie from 1873, the North West Mounted Police, the 150 first recruits, who had the core values of integrity, honesty, professionalism, respect, and accountability. We talked about the legend of the Mountie always getting his man, Dudley Do-Right and Captain Canuck. We also talked about our national symbols of the red serge and the campaign hat, travelling internationally with Mounties in the promotion of Canada, and how proud we are of our RCMP force. These brave men and women are indeed our silent sentinels, so that we can rest comfortably every night. They face human tragedy and danger every day.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-7 and how it impacts the 28,461 members.

As we talk about the history of our RCMP, we should talk about what our RCMP members face today. Today, the RCMP is among the lowest-paid police force in Canada. It has slipped from the number one ranked police force in the world to well below that.

Mr. Speaker, I should also mention that because I was very excited and very passionate about getting into this speech, I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil. I apologize for not mentioning that sooner.

The RCMP are paid 30% lower than their municipal colleagues. Morale is indeed at a low point. We are seeing the numbers every day. Regular force members are faced with increasing workloads and capacity. Time and again, our RCMP members' rights and freedoms are secondary to that, and to those who are committing the crimes.

Since 1974, RCMP members have worked under a non-unionized labour relations regime. They had a secondary group staff relations representative program, SRRP. This was the group that represented the members' rights to management. That was the only group that was able to collectively represent the interests of the employees and our regular force members to management. Despite the consultative role of the SRRP, management has always had the final say in all human resource matters.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled, in Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada, that the existing labour relations program, the one currently in place, violated the rights and freedoms of RCMP members.

Under subsection 2(d), “freedom of association”, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court found that indeed the rights and freedoms of RCMP members had been violated. Bill C-7 was introduced by this Liberal government in response to this decision last January. It was ruled that the Mounties should have the right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining. It should be noted that the RCMP are the only police force in Canada without that right.

The Liberals took this legislation a little too far. Bill C-7 contains a list of issues that are excluded from the bargaining table, as well as a controversial proposal to ship Mounties hurt on the job to the provinces they are working in. Among the items that were left out of collective bargaining were staffing levels, workplace harassment, sexual harassment, conduct, discipline, uniforms, and scheduling. These are clauses and issues that not just RCMP workers, but any workers should have. They should have the right for a safe environment, a safe workplace. They should have the right to a say in those areas.

The Conservatives and the opposition were able to strike down, through the Liberal majority on the committee, clauses 40 and 42. These are clauses that would have effectively moved RCMP members' health benefits to provincial entities. Indeed, workers' compensation claims would have been dealt with provincially. This would mean that Mounties would have a different standard of benefits, whether health or workers' compensation benefits, depending on the province they work in. Conservatives, through the committee, were able to strike that down. While this is a positive development, sadly, it took the spouses of existing and retired RCMP members to convince the Liberal government to finally see reason.

It was my sincere hope that through debate, the Liberals would listen to the other concerns, not just from the Conservative side but the NDP, and indeed other members in government, who also shared some of their concerns before the bill went to committee. We had hope on this side that by allowing that bill go to committee, there would be further amendments. Sadly, that was not the case.

Bill C-7 fails to support the brave men and women of the RCMP. It will take away their democratic right to a secret ballot and to negotiate other core issues that impact their work environment, their personal lives, and the lives of their families.

Let us talk about the democratic right to a secret ballot. The Conservatives will always stand behind the RCMP. We will always support legislation that allows for the democratic right for a secret ballot vote. However, we will not support legislation that so blatantly violates the wishes of its members.

I have been stopped a number of times on the street and in shopping centres. I have received emails and letters from RCMP members, wishing to be anonymous because they have been told not to speak about this issue. They have voiced their concerns about Bill C-7. Instead of forcing RCMP members to disclose their votes publicly, the Liberals should listen to the everyday rank and file, the RCMP members who are concerned that their vote will impact their workplace situations.

I think I speak for all members in the House when I say that we proudly support and defend the men and women who wear the RCMP uniform. We thank them for their service every day. However, we, as the official opposition, respect the Supreme Court's decision that RCMP officers are entitled to bargain collectively. Some Conservatives even voted in favour of Bill C-7 to get it to the committee, but we were only able to strike down clauses 40 and 42. The Liberal government, in its open and transparent ways, was unwilling to require secret ballot certification, an essential requirement in the democratic process.

We cannot support any legislation that would deny employees that fundamental right to vote in a secret ballot on whether to unionize. We do not use a show of hands or public petition in our democratic elections, nor should we in our workplace.

In closing—

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow up on something that I was discussing with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board earlier, which is the reason why it is so important to have harassment as an item subject to collective agreements in Bill C-7. I am very disappointed it is not there. The reason it should be there is that in a collective agreement there is the possibility and an ability to have it put into a framework. Right now if members of the RCMP complain of harassment they have no access to legal counsel, no support, and no peer support and can be subject to further harassment while awaiting a decision. We really should have a measure in this bill that gives the men and women of the RCMP the ability to set up a free, open collective bargaining framework that protects them if they are being harassed.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we have not yet heard any real arguments to justify the exclusions that are in Bill C-7.

Considering all the other protections for management that are included in Bill C-7, why does the government feel that these exclusions are necessary, and why not allow RCMP members to weigh in with their opinion?

This question should be pretty easy to answer, given that the government supports these protections.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the important bill now before us at third reading.

As members are aware, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in January of last year that a number of key provisions of the labour relations framework for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, the court outlined that interfering with the right of RCMP members to the collective bargaining aspect of the labour relations regime in place at the time was an infringement of RCMP members' charter guarantee of the right to freedom of association.

In accordance with the Supreme Court's timeline, that labour relations regime was dissolved on May 17. Right now, RCMP members are being provided with workplace support through the members' workplace services program on an interim basis. However, as I will discuss shortly, the House must move quickly to implement a new legislative framework governing labour relations in our national police force. As such, I invite all members to join us in support 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.

That this legislation was brought before the House so quickly is a mark of our government's determination to respect not only the ruling of the court, but also, in a timely manner, to respect the constitutional right of the thousands of men and women who serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This government takes the protection and security of Canadians very seriously. Since the RCMP plays an integral role in achieving this objective, it makes sense that we should make every effort to protect the rights of those who protect us.

Let me now turn to how Bill C-7 would achieve these essential goals. In the first instance, as the court made clear in its decision, in order to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a labour relations regime must be based on two fundamental principles: one, it must provide for independence, in the sense that an employee organization must be independent of management; and, two, to comply with the charter, a labour relations regime must provide choice, in the sense that employees have the opportunity to choose for themselves the organization they wish to represent their interests to their employer.

By contrast, to quote the decision of the court, the labour relations framework known as the staff relations representative program was:

… not an association in any meaningful sense, nor a form of exercise of the right to freedom of association. It is simply an internal human relations scheme imposed on RCMP members by management.

Bill C-7 would enable the very opposite. It speaks to that which is the essence of bargaining as a collective: an independent organization, not beholden to management, freely chosen by the people whose interests it was created to represent and uphold.

RCMP members and reservists, for the first time, would enjoy the same labour relations rights that other employees in the federal workplace have enjoyed for more than four decades: independence and their choice of representation.

Before I get into the details of the bill, I think it worthwhile to remind the House how the bill came to look the way it does. The Government of Canada could not simply impose these changes on RCMP members. It was important that the government hear and take into account the views of RCMP regular members.

RCMP members were consulted through a variety of channels, from an online survey to town hall sessions in more than a dozen communities across the country. More than 9,000 regular members completed the survey, and over 650 people participated in the town hall sessions.

At the same time, recognizing that the RCMP, through police service agreements, provides police services in many jurisdictions across Canada, and that a change in labour relations may have implications for those agreements, Public Safety Canada engaged in discussions with the provinces and territories that are served by the RCMP.

The bill before us today is in keeping with the decision of the Supreme Court and also with the results of consultations with RCMP regular members and reservists and contracting jurisdictions.

The views and preferences expressed during those consultations with RCMP members and reservists were clear. A large majority stated that they wanted: first, the option for a unionized RCMP; second, independence from RCMP management; third, representation in a single national bargaining unit of RCMP members and reservists by a bargaining agent whose principle mandate is the representation of RCMP members; and fourth, binding arbitration with no right to strike.

Bill C-7 addresses each of these four key points, which come from RCMP regular members and reservists themselves. RCMP members and reservists told us they wanted the option to unionize. This bill would provide them with the option to choose whether they wish to be represented by a bargaining agent, in a sense, a union. They told us they wanted independence from RCMP management, and this bill would enable a bargaining agent that is independent from the influence of RCMP management.

A majority said they wanted representation in a single national bargaining unit of RCMP members and reservists by a bargaining agent whose principal mandate is the representation of RCMP members. This is a point worthy of further explanation.

The government agrees that should RCMP members choose to be represented by a union, that bargaining agent must have the representation of police forces as its only responsibility. To do otherwise opens the possibility of a potential conflict in loyalties. It would be unfair and unwise to put RCMP members in the position of having to police members of another bargaining unit with which the members were affiliated.

The government also agrees that the bargaining agent should be a single national body rather than having the national character of the RCMP altered by the formation of regional unions.

We are confident that Canadians will see these provisions as appropriate. Again, most RCMP members themselves believe this to be the best course. Indeed, one of the reasons it is important for us to adopt this legislation quickly is that since the previous labour relations regime was dissolved on May 17, the RCMP finds itself in an interim period. The sooner Bill C-7 is in place, the sooner we can ensure that regional bargaining agents or bargaining agents that are not exclusively focused on policing do not begin to establish themselves within our national police force.

The bill would also achieve the independence and choice demanded by the court decision by bringing RCMP members and reservists under the governance of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, thus aligning RCMP labour relations with that of the rest of the federal public service. This means RCMP regular members and reservists would have the right to negotiate a collective agreement, as bargaining agents have been negotiating on behalf of other federal employees for decades, and as is the case for every other police service in Canada.

Existing provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act that exclude employees in managerial and confidential positions would apply to the RCMP. As well, when the act is applied to the RCMP, officers holding the rank of inspector and above would be excluded from representation.

This bill would enable the negotiation of collective agreements that would cover things one would expect to find in such agreements, from rates of pay and pay increments to hours of work and work scheduling. RCMP regular members and reservists would be able to negotiate, among other things, overtime and extra duty pay; shift and weekend premiums; designated paid holidays, vacation and sick leave; parental and maternity leave; career development; and education. In other words they could negotiate provisions we have become accustomed to seeing for many, many years in the collective agreements that have been negotiated in the federal public service and in public and private sector organizations across Canada.

Further, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be charged with administering the process for RCMP members, just as it does for all other employees of the Treasury Board of Canada.

As one would expect, Bill C-7 takes into account the particular circumstances of the RCMP and the important role of the RCMP as Canada’s national police force in ensuring the safety and security of Canadians.

Accordingly, it restricts certain matters from negotiation or inclusion in any arbitral awards that impact the RCMP's ability to operate in an effective and accountable manner.

Things such as law enforcement techniques, including methods of interrogation, crime analysis, witness protection, DNA collection, search and seizure techniques, and so on, would be non-negotiable.

Other exclusions from collective bargaining or arbitration would include, for example, the uniform, order of dress and equipment of the RCMP; deployment; and conduct and discipline, including inappropriate behaviour, commonly recognized as harassment, and enforcement techniques. These kinds of exceptions are by no means unusual, but as I know, the issue of conduct, including harassment, has been the subject of much discussion in the House and in committee, allow me to reiterate that it is a priority for our government to ensure that all RCMP members and employees feel safe and respected at work.

The Minister of Public Safety has made clear directly to the RCMP commissioner that in dealing with harassment we expect comprehensive, transparent investigations; serious disciplinary measures; support for victims; and concrete action to end toxic workplace behaviour.

As the House has been informed, the minister has asked the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to undertake a comprehensive review of the RCMP's policies and procedures on workplace harassment and to evaluate the implementation of the recommendation it made in 2013. Going forward, the minister will continue to be active on this important part of his mandate from the Prime Minister to ensure that the RCMP and all other parts of the public safety portfolio are free from harassment and sexual violence.

I will close by returning to the four key elements RCMP members told us they wanted to see in a new labour relations framework. They want the option for a unionized RCMP; independence from RCMP management; representation in a single, national, bargaining unit of RCMP members and reservists by a bargaining agent whose principal mandate is the representation of RCMP members; and binding arbitration with no right to strike.

It is fitting to end my remarks today on the last element. I believe it speaks to the commitment and dedication of the members of our national police service that members themselves have told us they should not be allowed to withdraw their service.

Clearly, RCMP members understand their responsibility, and this government understands its responsibility, which is to respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and bring forward a bill that assures RCMP regular members and reservists of their charter right to freedom of association. That is the bill we have before us now, and I urge all members of this House to join the government in supporting its expeditious passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we had a spreadsheet submitted to us at committee on the last day, one from MPPAC and one from the RCMP itself, we found that in virtually every category of exclusion, at least one and often more police forces across Canada do have clauses that fall within the area of that exclusion.

These exclusions are not normal for police forces across Canada, which is part of what we are saying. If police forces across the country have negotiated clauses that fall under the purview of these exclusions and the sky did not fall, then why would we think that the sky would fall if RCMP members are allowed to just bring it to the table for starters? They may negotiate something that falls within the purview of one of those exemptions, but that would not be the end of the world.

To speak to some of my colleague's concerns about cost and other things, it is important to know that the proposed framework set up in Bill C-7 is that those things go to binding arbitration. The arbitrator, because of what is in Bill C-7, is required to take into consideration in his or her deliberations the unique nature of the RCMP as a national police force and the stated budgetary policies of the government. That is not a very forgiving arbitration regime from the point of view of RCMP members. What we are saying is that the government should at least allow them to bring proposals to the table and maybe—

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

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the flashpoint incidents, or the cases that RCMP members and the MPPAC, and those who have advocated for collective bargaining for the RCMP for a long time and who took the government to court to secure those rights, they are not talking about 5% over four years or little adjustments to the health plan or pension. They are talking about the kinds of incidents that we have heard about in the media. They have to do with harassment. They have to do with officers answering calls alone in remote and northern communities and ending up hurt or dead. They are talking about the equipment that in some cases they do not have in order to respond effectively, and which has ended up in the injury or death of members.

These are the things that animated and motivated a court battle over many years in an effort to win those rights. I have a lot of sympathy for members who are feeling angry and frustrated that the bill that is supposed to bring a collective bargaining regime into existence for them, at the same time takes away their ability to raise the very issues that animated and maintained and motivated that court battle over so many years.

My short answer to the member's question is yes. It is not right that the RCMP is not able to bring proposals to the table. No one is saying collective bargaining fixes everything, but the court has said that Canadians have a right to it and that it is another way to address problems. It is fair to say that the RCMP is in need of a new way because it has tried things under the old model many times before. I am glad to see that we are going to try again. I hope it is successful. We could increase the odds of success by putting more tools in the toolbox. That is what meaningful collective bargaining would do, but that is unfortunately not in Bill C-7.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his work on Bill C-7. However, he asked a question about exclusions, and I will answer that before asking him another question.

Bill C-7 would align the RCMP labour relations and collective bargaining with the rest of the public service. It has exclusions that apply to other public servants. What works well is that there are other avenues established in statutes where employees can pursue their interests and objectives in collective bargaining. It is far more than just pay and benefits that is included, as there is a whole host of other issues.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on the issue that was raised by the member for Durham. He supported everything about Bill C-7 until the last few minutes of his speech. He then pulled his support, walking away from the constitutional rights to appropriate collective bargaining and turning his back on RCMP members, on the issue of card check versus secret ballot.

The member is very aware that the board has the right to apply the secret ballot. Should it think there is uncertainty in any way as to what the card-check method produced in terms of the intentions of the members, it can and will have a secret ballot.

Could the member explain his position around the certification and decertification to help me understand why the Conservatives would walk away from the entire bill on that issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my remarks today by thanking all the men and women in the RCMP who serve our country. It has been a real honour to have had an opportunity, through working on Bill C-7, to hear from them and get a sense of the needs and challenges of the RCMP today.

As a new member of Parliament, this has been an opportunity for me to learn a lot about a very important institution in Canada and to hear directly from those who serve us so well.

It is an attempt by the NDP to try to manifest that thanks in arguments and in a position on Bill C-7 that will bring about the best outcome for members of the RCMP and that will give them a greater say in the future of the institution they serve, and through that institution the country.

It is my hope that our arguments and actions in this debate have been worthy of their service. In that spirit, I would like to make some remarks about the bill at third reading.

Bill C-7 was one of the first bills the government brought to the House of Commons. At that time, there was a collegial spirit, and a lot of talk about the importance of the committee process and how empowered committees would be in order to make meaningful changes to legislation. At that time, there was far less evidence that this may not come to pass than there is now.

The NDP was happy to support the bill at second reading, to send it to committee to deal with what we thought were some important concerns. Some of those concerns were addressed, and we were happy to work with other parties in order to get rid of clauses 40 and 42 in the bill, which really had little to do with the Supreme Court decision and were kind of tacking on a decision about the benefits of members without consulting them. Frankly, this was just before, or on the cusp, of them potentially having a bargaining unit that could do that credibly on their behalf.

That did not make sense. We were very glad to work with the other parties on committee to jettison that part of the bill, and leave it for later when RCMP members could be represented in that discussion and help come to a conclusion about the state of their benefits, rather than having the decision made for them.

The next important area of concern from our point of view are the exclusions. That is also the point of view of nearly every RCMP member who has contacted me as the responsible critic in the NDP.

Today we heard hon. members talk about the two important elements of the Supreme Court decision, the explicit ones. Those are independence of the bargaining unit from management and choice, that members be able to choose a bargaining unit.

What gets lost, even though those are the two items explicitly mentioned by the Supreme Court, is that there needs to be an independent bargaining unit freely chosen by the membership in order to bargain with the employer about the things that matter in the workplace.

Even if the bill meets those two aspects of independence and choice, if it leaves nothing to bargain, because that has all been excluded under the legislation, or if it does not leave most things to bargain, then I do not think it is in keeping with the spirit of the Supreme Court decision. I have said before in the House that the bill as it stands is certainly open to challenge.

It is not just open to challenge because it is a bill, a piece of law. Any bill at any time is open to any challenge. It is open to challenge, and is likely to be challenged, because it does not satisfy the people who went to court and fought for years in order to get some meaningful say over the future of their workplace.

It is not because by getting collective bargaining rights all of a sudden employees or the president of the union or just anyone who happens to work for the RCMP can walk into the commissioner's office and say “This is the way it will go from now on”. It is because it would at least give them the opportunity to be involved and consulted in a way that they never have been before.

That is why so many RCMP members were so excited and joyful when the Supreme Court ruled that it was not right and that it was a violation of their charter rights that they be denied the right to bargain collectively in their workplace. The way that the Supreme Court made sense of that was that people need the freedom to meaningfully advocate for their concerns within their workplaces.

It has been our position all along that these exclusions do not do that. It seems to be that some members are of the view that somehow if we take away the exclusions, suddenly a clerk in the RCMP would be dictating to the commissioner what the rules of the workplace are. Of course to anyone who has any real understanding of collective bargaining, that is ridiculous. I do not see why we would not want to empower members to bring forward proposals about the way things ought to operate in the RCMP. We all know and have discussed many times already, not just in this Parliament but in all of the previous Parliaments, that there are problems within the RCMP.

Traditionally, the way to deal with those problems has been that the commissioner and the government, in some way, shape, or form, get together and say that there is zero tolerance for the kinds of problems that exist, or affirm their support for the force and say that they want to work together to ensure that the RCMP members have everything they need. However, we know that has not always worked. I do not see how that could possibly be controversial to say.

Collective bargaining, which the court has said RCMP members have a charter right to, would not be the only tool. I do not think anyone is maintaining that once collective bargaining comes to the RCMP there will be no further problems or incidents in the workplace. What we are saying is that by introducing meaningful collective bargaining, and by that I mean bargaining without the list of exclusions currently in Bill C-7, we would be introducing a genuinely new tool into the workplace, not just for workers but also for management and the government to deal with some of those issues, and to deal with them closer to where they are happening, so that they do not have to come to Parliament to be dealt with, mostly by people who do not have experience or background in the RCMP. They could be dealt with in the workplace instead.

If it turns out that some of those proposals are completely unreasonable, then they would go to binding arbitration. That arbitrator is required by this very law to take into account the unique role of the RCMP as a national police force and the stated budgetary policies of the government. Therefore, allowing RCMP members to come forward with proposals is not any kind of real threat to the operational structure of the RCMP. Any of those proposals would first be reviewed by management at the bargaining table. If they are really unreasonable they would not be agreed to. Beyond that, they would be assessed by an independent third party that has to take into account all of those very factors, which members have so well articulated, that make the RCMP different.

Certainly, if we talk to RCMP members themselves, those who are advocating for a more open model of collective bargaining without the exclusions, they will tell us that they do not want the RCMP to be treated just like any other federal department. However, if we take the exclusions out, the RCMP is still not treated just as any other federal department.

Therefore, it is our submission that Bill C-7 satisfies the legitimate concerns made in those arguments and that those arguments are mistakenly applied in favour of having an itemized list of exclusions, when those concerns are already answered by the many other elements of protection either for management or due to the unique nature of the RCMP. Sometimes those are harder to tell apart than others, but we are satisfied that those protections exist and that unreasonable proposals that do not adequately care for the spirit of the RCMP and its unique operational nature will be dispensed with through binding arbitration and those interpretive constraints.

What the exclusions really amount to is just prejudging the reasonableness of the proposals employees may bring, and saying to them in advance, “Whatever it is you want to bring here you can't, and we don't want to hear it.” That is the tone that is set.

There may be other avenues that they can bring those proposals through. There have been other avenues over the last four or five decades and more. However, the point is that those other avenues have not been satisfactory. That is why so many members of the RCMP took the RCMP to court to say they wanted collective bargaining because their legitimate desires and goals within the workplace, even though it would be nice if they were, were not being heard adequately through those others avenues.

They want another avenue called collective bargaining, not because it is a panacea, not because they are going to get everything they want but because they clearly need another tool in the tool box. They need another way of working on these issues in their workplace in order to have success at resolving long-standing issues within their institution that have eluded them through all those other avenues. It is their way of asking the government not to create more avenues that formally are the same as the avenues before, but to do something genuinely new and let them in on the ground level to propose and be part of solutions in their workplace to deal with as much as they can as close to the work as they can. Those other issues that cannot be resolved can then bubble up and can be dealt with along with those other avenues.

I just do not see why that does not sound like a good idea to the government, and why the government insists on maintaining these exclusions. I just do not see the same threat to the institution.

Looking at the bill and considering the history of the RCMP and listening to what RCMP members would have to say is something that unfortunately more Canadians are not in a position to be able to do directly. Part of the honour and privilege of being the critic for the bill for the NDP is that I have had the opportunity to do that. When we lay those things beside each other, it is hard not to feel that this list of exclusions really is just ridiculous. It either comes from a desire to satisfy RCMP management as opposed to the front-line workers in a way that I do not think makes sense or is appropriate for government, or it comes just from a basic failure to understand collective bargaining. That is not where I started out in terms of my thinking on this, but I just do not see how they can engender this kind of resistance to these exclusions, given everything else that is within the bill, the binding arbitration system and the interpretive constraints put on the arbitrator, and think that somehow the RCMP is going to fall apart if members put their issues on the table.

Those members care deeply about the institution, and that is something that has been very clear to me in the correspondence that I have received from them. Let them bring the proposals, let them work with management, and let them have their agreements and disagreements. For what does not get solved there, we can look at those other avenues. No one is saying those other avenues need to be closed. It is just to say that there is an opportunity here to do it differently and to do it better, and that we can do that while respecting the unique nature and therefore unique needs of the RCMP. In fact, a lot of that is already in the bill.

Just to address some of the other arguments that have been made, we have heard that it is a different kind of organization because the members start out as cadets and anyone who ultimately ends up wearing the commissioner's uniform wore the other uniforms on the way up, so there is a level of trust with the senior leadership of the RCMP. That is a nice picture, and I am sure that it is true in many cases. However, it is clearly not enough, just in the way that collective bargaining on its own is not enough. Just because they have a collective agreement, it does not mean that they will never again have a workplace incident. However, they set up rules in order to be able to deal with an incident when it happens.

The trust and camaraderie within the RCMP is a good thing and I am sure that in certain cases that has meant a great deal to those members and has helped resolve situations, but it clearly has not resolved them all. It verges on being naive to expect that simply because people were together in their initial training, somehow 20 years later there are never going to be problems between management and workers. Sometimes despite its best intentions, management is going to be on the wrong side of that argument. What is important then when that trust breaks down, as it has demonstrably within the RCMP at times, is that there is a good process in place. That is the idea behind a collective agreement.

There can be workplace processes in place without a collective agreement. Many workplaces have them, but the idea is to give RCMP members a say in what those procedures will be. It is not to say they would get a veto on every workplace procedure. It still has to be negotiated and go to binding arbitration. Fundamentally I do not agree with the idea that somehow there is something that will fall apart if members are allowed to bring those proposals.

When one hears from as many members as I have, they are distressed and upset at the fact that those proposals will not be able to go forward. They were also not consulted in any serious or meaningful way prior to this. There was a survey that the Conservatives ran last summer. I have heard from certain members that they did not really know what they were being consulted on or understood what their answers would ultimately mean. Therefore, there has not been great consultation and I have been hearing that members do not agree with the exclusions.

I do not see why the government is willing to dissatisfy so many RCMP members, many of whom were part of the suit in court, who felt that they were gaining not a panacea but an important tool in the workplace that was not there before, a workplace where some things were not going right. In my view, there is not much at stake with removing these exclusions.

That is something I have been wrestling with. I wrestled with it at committee and again at report stage where there was an amendment about the exclusions. It was not as comprehensive as the NDP amendment at committee, but it at least dealt with one of those exclusions. We heard the same arguments and we are hearing those same arguments again today at third reading. It has been a bit of a disappointment in terms of process, because other than the RCMP commissioner himself and some top brass and other members of this chamber on the government side and in the Conservative Party, I have not heard anyone say that they agree with the exclusions or that they do not think some of those exclusions should be lifted.

It is rare to get a unanimous conclusion and I have heard from some who think some exclusions are warranted and maybe others are not, but the resounding cry I have heard from those who would be affected by the legislation is that they would like to have a significant number of exclusions removed, and in most cases all of them, so that they can bring proposals forward. I have yet to hear a compelling argument, when I look at the whole bill and the other aspects of the bill, that says we should not be doing this.

Saying RCMP members all went to their first training together so we should just trust them to do a good job is not sufficient. I do not think it is enough to say that they are getting independence and choice of the bargaining unit, when there is not left much to bargain. That is a really important thrust of the Supreme Court decision. That is clear and that is the subject of the decision. One might forgive the court for not feeling it had to be on the list of things the legislation had to satisfy. How do members select a bargaining unit if the legislation that grants the right and the process to collective bargaining takes away everything that can be bargained at the same time, leaving only pay and benefits? It is clear that the spirit of the decision is not being respected and we can expect to see it challenged again by the very same people who fought it for a very long time.

We started out by supporting this to send it to committee in part because we wanted to see those exclusions dealt with, but that simply never happened. In all of that I never heard a really compelling argument for why they would not be removed. It is unfortunate, but it is not something that we can support at third reading at the end of this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the member for Elmwood—Transcona on Bill C-7. He joined our committee for a time, and was a welcome addition. I disagree with him, and this puts me in the odd spot that I am helping the government indirectly, but there has not been a sleight of hand here.

On the elements of the exclusion, some things can be dealt with elsewhere. I have talked about Bill C-42 and the issues and the structure around the Financial Administration Act, Treasury Board guidelines. Therefore, there is another framework of federal regulation surrounding the workplace that also applies to the RCMP.

However, what is critical, and I said this at committee and know the hon. member was listening, is that the chain of command nature of the RCMP and the ability for training, service standards, discipline and that sort of thing is from the chain of command structure. While I agree there is some trust issues with managements, and there has been historically for the last couple of decades, at the end of the day, senior leaders in the RCMP started in the same place a brand new recruit did, in depot. The operational requirements, standards and indeed discipline and conduct are elements of that training and that uniform. Operational command and the ability to post, the ability to assess performance is of paramilitary nature and is not a regular workplace environment.

What I say to some members, and we had them at committee, is that the RCMP members go through depot and some of their classmates, men or women, will become senior management, ultimately maybe commissioner one day. That trust and that shared training and adherence to the institution is part of the workplace. The Supreme Court recognizes that. It did not say, as a result of the Supreme Court decision, that this workplace would be treated like a manufacturing plant or even another element of government.

It is important for the government to try to get the balance right. As I said, it has that in terms of independence from management. We feel the front line is not sufficiently confident in what it sees in Bill C-7. Without a secret ballot vote, we cannot really know whether our men and women of the RCMP support this union structure.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with the hon. member as Bill C-7 works its way through Parliament, even though we do not always agree.

I would like to pick up on a theme that was in his speech and also in the remarks of the parliamentary secretary earlier. Collective bargaining is not the only place that workplace safety and health issues get meted out. As the parliamentary secretary noted earlier, there are places with collective bargaining where workplace issues still arise. I want to address that, because it is a bit of a sleight of hand. While it is a fair point, it does not really get at the essence of what we need to be discussing when it comes to Bill C-7.

Of course workplace issues still arise in workplaces governed by collective agreements. The point of the agreement is to have a framework to decide how to deal with those issues when they come up. It is wrong to say that because there are still workplace issues at places with collective agreements that workplaces do not need collective agreements, which is really the pared down version of the argument we heard from the parliamentary secretary. A version of that we heard in the member's remarks.

Could the member speak to the fact that collective agreements are a tool and an important way to address workplace safety and health issues and that as Bill C-7 exists, if we take away the exclusions, there are still a lot of very reasonable layers of protection for management? Issues go to binding arbitration, the arbitrator is required to consider the unique role of the RCMP as a national police force, as well as the stated budgetary policies of the government.

My point is that there is a lot of protection for management in Bill C-7 without the exclusions, so why would we, as a Parliament, want to prejudge the reasonableness of the proposals and the commitment of RCMP members and their bargaining agent to the institution and not allow them to even bring those forward?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his work on the bill, and his compliments on my remarks. I appreciate that. I know he was listening intently, as he did two previous times, so I am sure he heard certain elements of my speeches before.

Unfortunately, I would have to give my friend a 50% grade on Bill C-7. Two elements were elucidated upon by the Supreme Court, and the Liberals fail on one and pass on the other. What we see in Bill C-7 is sufficiently independent from management. It is taking the shortcomings of the staff relations program and fixing it.

Where the Liberals fail is on employee choice, for two reasons, and it gives me no great pleasure to give them this grade. The first is that they cannot make a decision unless they are informed on the full extent of the elements of Bill C-7, including the exclusions. We are all hearing from men and women of the RCMP that they do not understand why certain elements of the collective bargaining context are excluded so they cannot make an informed decision on their bargaining agent.

The second element of why they fail—the employee choice element of the Supreme Court decision—is the secret ballot vote. Our previous government did an outreach exercise in the form of a questionnaire to members. However, to really find out what members think, the members have to understand what is before them, and it is clear not enough of them do, and they have to weight the decision and vote, free from pressure from management and free from their partners in some cases. The way we do that in a democracy is with a secret ballot. I am not sure why this modest proposal is being ignored by the government.

[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?

Motions in Amendment

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to stand in this place and continue our dialogue and debate on Bill C-7. If members in this place were here when I made my initial comments and observations on Bill C-7, they will know about my history, both with the RCMP and the labour movement in Canada. To risk repeating myself, I will remind members exactly how the RCMP has touched me and my family over the years, and how the union movement in Canada has been involved a great deal in my life and my upbringing.

As I mentioned in my first intervention a few weeks ago, my mother's first husband was an officer in the RCMP who was killed on active duty at Depot, many years ago. Although I never met my mother's first husband, I learned of him very early in my childhood. My mother would tell me stories about who my father could have been. She told me stories about her husband and how much they loved each other and how much he loved his job with the RCMP. She told me about the unfortunate tragedy that took place when he was killed that one fateful day at Depot.

Since that time, I have always had a deep and very resolute appreciation of the dangers that every member of the RCMP faces each and every day of his or her life. Also, since that early childhood of mine, I have grown to know a great many RCMP members, many of whom are very close friends of mine, some who are current, some retired, and unfortunately a number who have passed on to a better life. However, universally all of those members shared common values: respect for the tradition of the force, and also a respect for democracy and democratic rights in Canada.

That is why, with all of the RCMP members whom I have spoken with since Bill C-7 was first introduced, to a person, they have all stated the same thing. They believe their right to certify if they wish should be conducted using a secret ballot. In fact, it is more a result of their being incredulous to the fact that Bill C-7 would not allow them that right.

My colleague from Durham who spoke just before me mentioned that many members of the RCMP perhaps were not aware of all the provisions in Bill C-4 and Bill C-7. They were not aware of the fact that they would not be able to cast a ballot in private. However, they are starting to become aware of that right now. Why the current government is hell-bent on its desire to prevent a secret ballot environment for our national police force almost defies credulity.

I can only think of one reason why that would be, and that is the fact that in the last election campaign, the Liberal Party campaigned aggressively to try to gather and garner the union vote. I can assure members that rank-and-file members of unions believe in secret balloting, union bosses not so much. The reason for that is that if they do not have a secret ballot when determining whether, for example, to strike, rank-and-file union members can be intimidated.

I know this first hand. I referenced the fact that I grew up in a union household. I did. My father was the head of the United Steelworkers of America, very active obviously in the union movement. In fact, he mentored Ken Neumann, who is now the national head of the United Steelworkers for Canada. At a very early age, I recall my father taking me to union meetings. I jokingly put to members that perhaps he was doing it for one of two reasons. One, he was honouring a commitment of babysitting that he made to my mother, or two, he hoped that his young son would grow up to be a union representative like him. If it was number one, he succeeded admirably. If it was number two, he failed miserably.

While I am certainly not a member of any union and I am certainly not enthralled with the union movement as a whole, I can say that I respect the right of any organization in Canada to unionize. I respect the role that unions have in Canada. I understand the role that unions play in Canada. However, there are many faults in the bill as it appears before us today. The biggest single fault is the inability of the legislation to allow for a secret ballot on determining whether or not to certify.

At the union meetings I attended as a youngster, I saw first hand how intimidation can work. Again, I use the example of a strike vote, where all union members would gather in a union hall, hear speeches primarily from their brothers and sisters in leadership positions within the union, and then would be asked to vote by a show of hands. I can assure the House that if there were any members in that union hall that did not want to strike for whatever reason, many times they would be afraid to express their true will by a show of hands. Why? Because some of their brothers and sisters would gather around them and let it be known in no uncertain terms the way in which they were to vote because the union leadership wanted a strike.

I think that is absolutely unconscionable. It was unconscionable then and it should be unconscionable now. Intimidation factors should not be allowed in any workforce or any workplace. By the same token, I will freely admit that there have been times in the past in certain non-unionized organizations where management would use intimidation factors. That also is unconscionable. That also should not be allowed but there is a simple way to fix this, to remedy this, and that is to allow secret ballots.

If an organization chose to unionize, so be it. It is the will of its members. However, if they chose not to unionize, those who voted against that very concept of unionization should not be then consequently intimidated and threatened because they voted against the wishes of their union leaders.

Across Canada, most provincial legislation allows for secret ballots in the workforce. In fact, they expressly prohibit non-compliance with that legislation. They make it a point to ensure that democracy is served. The ability for Canadians in any walk of life to express their will in a secret ballot environment is a basic tenet of democracy. Why the government fails to allow this in Bill C-7 and Bill C-4 is almost beyond belief. I can only go back to what I said just a few moments ago. I think this is payback to the union leaders who they courted during the election campaign of 2015 and that is shameful, absolutely shameful.

I have spoken with so many RCMP officers since Bill C-7 was first introduced because Depot used to be in my riding before the boundaries changed in the last election. Consequently, I am a frequent visitor at Depot and because of my history with the force, many members there know me and know me well. To a person, every single one of them was aghast at the fact that they would not have the right, if they decided to vote for or against union, to do so in private.

Bill C-7 is flawed. We know it is flawed and I believe the government knows it is flawed. That is what makes this doubly shameful. On the opposition side we will not be supporting Bill C-7. I cannot support Bill C-7 and I think it is a shame because other than that, the bill does contain provisions that are very helpful to the RCMP. However, that one provision disallowing secret ballots is something that is a deal breaker for me and I will certainly not be supporting the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think what the member's question best illustrates is the fact that Bill C-7 is not well understood. In fact, I said at committee, and I said it quite clearly, as someone who served in uniform of the military for 12 years and understands the paramilitary structure of the RCMP, that there needs to be the ability to have postings, apprisals, operational performance, and those sorts of things. Therefore, we tried to sort of understand that approach on exclusions.

However, what he is illustrating and what members of the RCMP have told us is that they have concerns about some of them.

I do not feel that some of the exclusions result in what some people are suggesting about harassment or workplace safety. Those have to be paramount considerations. Our previous government brought legislation to this place on the harassment issue itself. That is critical.

However, what his question and the emails and calls I get show is that members have not really been asked for their say with respect to Bill C-7. The rushing, the limiting of debate, and then the elimination of that right to vote of front-line members has profound considerations. This is why we will be opposing Bill C-7.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting in my colleague's question is that he said the RCMP members are being afforded this legislation that came as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision. I agree they have. Why should they not also be afforded the basic democratic right to then have their own vote on whether or not they have a collective bargaining agent and who that should be.

We are setting the framework here. We are affording them the ability to have that, as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario case, but we are not then affording the rank and file to have their say.

The fact that in recent weeks we are hearing that many of those rank and file members do not understand the full impact of Bill C-7 on their workplace means that we should then give them the right to absorb the framework given by Bill C-7.

If the hon. member feels we should afford the force this right to collectively organize, we should then afford the same right to the individual members who are the collective of what the union will represent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock for bringing her experience to this House.

The best part of this new Parliament, from the viewpoint of the opposition, is not the fact that we are in opposition—that is certainly not a bright point at all—but the fact that one-third of our caucus is now made up of new members of Parliament.

The hon. member who just spoke brings to this House her experience as a municipal leader, particularly in Surrey, as she mentioned, which has the largest RCMP detachment in the country. In recent years, that has probably been the most tasked detachment in the country, working with challenges in violence and organized crime that the area has seen. Her leadership as mayor was recognized long before she joined this Parliament.

That is when the House of Commons is at its best. It is when we have members of this place rising in the House to talk on legislation, not just based on what is contained in it, but how it impacts the lives of those impacted by the bill, how the work done by the men and women of the RCMP in Surrey, indeed across the country, is fundamental to the safety and security of the people of Canada and the people of Surrey. They reached out to her council while she led council there, with concerns about crime and these sorts of things.

As a mayor, she also brought to the debate the impact of uniformed service on men and women in the RCMP, the rise of operational stress injuries, the risk of violence, the impact on family of stress, moves, and these sorts of things. I appreciate her addition to the debate here today, and her discussions with me and other members of our caucus on Bill C-7.

It is her input, and the input of members of the RCMP across the country, that is leading the official opposition to oppose Bill C-7. As members may recall at the introduction of this bill, I said we would try to work with the government on it.

Bill C-7 is in this place as a result of the Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada. This was a Supreme Court decision that stated that the staff relations program at the RCMP was not sufficient to meet the rights of association guaranteed to all Canadians under the charter.

That program was an internal HR function that tried to work between management and the men and women on the front lines of the RCMP. The Supreme Court decision stated that the exclusion of the RCMP from the Public Sector Labour Relations Act and its inability to associate violated the charter. Therefore, Bill C-7 is here before us.

In my speech, I said we would work with the government as a result of the timeline that the Supreme Court of Canada gave Parliament to provide a framework so the men and women of the RCMP could get union representation in a way that suits the needs of the unique role that the RCMP plays.

I remind members of this House, I remind the government, that it was given a lot of flexibility by the court. The key element, though, was that it had to be free from management. This type of collective structure needed that degree of independence from management. The rights and the freedoms of members needed to be reflected in that association, so their charter rights needed to be secured.

We did not see that in Bill C-7, from introduction through to committee. That is why our willingness to work with the government only had the legs to get us to committee. As my friend before me said, we were very concerned with clauses 40 and 42 in Bill C-7, which could have resulted in a patchwork of entitlements by RCMP members for health and occupational safety provisions across the country.

In fact, clauses 40 and 42 have nothing to do with the standing up of a collective bargaining agent for the RCMP. It was essentially the outsourcing by the federal government of workers compensation programs to provincial regimes. As each province is different, it would have taken a single unified national police force and created a patchwork of benefits for their members, depending on where Canada asked them to serve.

We had problems with that because the men and women in RCMP uniform go where their nation needs them, whether that be to Surrey or Shelburne, Nova Scotia, similar to when I was in the Canadian Armed Forces. They should not have to worry about a patchwork of benefits and occupational rights depending on which posting they are in.

Therefore, I am happy to say that the government did listen to the concerns that the official opposition expressed with respect to clauses 40 and 42. Ultimately, I am sure that some of its own members heard from members of the RCMP, and the government agreed to strike those provisions at committee. I applaud the government for listening.

I also will remind members that I had profound concerns that some members of the RCMP felt they were being told they could not speak to their member of Parliament and express concerns they has as Canadians with respect to a bill that would impact them and their family, which is Bill C-7. Once again, the government disappointed the opposition, and as the critic, I rose in the chamber to seek unanimous consent of the House and to show that, in the matter before us that would impact thousands of Canadians across the country, none of them should be intimidated or prevented from giving their opinion to their member of Parliament. Because there was that concern within the RCMP, I stood in this House and asked for unanimous consent to say that, as parliamentarians, we should hear from all members who are impacted by the legislation that we are debating and voting on.

Sadly, members of the government denied unanimous consent for such a basic fundamental democratic right. I was not asking for the ability of uniformed RCMP members to throw up bonfires and protests; we were asking for the simple democratic right for members of the RCMP, or their partners or spouses, to be able to come to their MP and express their concerns with respect to legislation. I was profoundly disappointed when the government denied that unanimous consent that would have encouraged MPs to hear from people in uniform on what is probably the most profound bill in generations to impact the RCMP.

While we are on the topic of democratic rights, the other thing I clearly said in my initial speech on Bill C-7 was that we expect Bill C-7 and ultimately the collective bargaining unit for the RCMP to be the subject of a vote by members. We said that in the House and at committee, and the government is not providing that. If we combine Bill C-7 and Bill C-4, it would take away that right from the members of the RCMP in one bill and be silent on it in Bill C-7. The government knows full well that it will pass Bill C-4, which will deprive RCMP members of a secret ballot vote, while concurrently passing Bill C-7. That is shameful. That is why we are opposing Bill C-7.

Why is it shameful? We are debating Bill C-7 as the result of a Supreme Court of Canada decision that asked Parliament to fill the void that the Supreme Court indicated was there with respect to the exclusion of the RCMP from the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Therefore, we are here debating Bill C-7 because of a court decision. However, no members of the RCMP have really been asked about this fundamental question. Why would the government fear giving a secret ballot vote to all RCMP members from Surrey to Shelburne on a collective bargaining agent that is in their own interest?

What is ironic is that every member of the 338 members in this chamber were elected to this place by a secret ballot vote. However, they do not feel it is the same to give the basic fundamental democratic right to vote on their representation collectively to people whom we give the important task of keeping Canadians safe in rural parts of Canada, where the RCMP is the only face of the government and of law and order in this country, those members whom we ask to keep us safe. It is a sad irony that the new government that runs on and talks about sunny ways is clouding those sunny ways by running Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 through the House at the same time.

While I am glad the Liberals listened to us and struck clauses 40 and 42 from the bill, the fact that they are not listening to the existing concerns my colleague from Surrey mentioned and not giving the men and women the right to vote means that Canada's official opposition, the Conservative Party, cannot support Bill C-7.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as many in the House know, I have had a long relationship with both the RCMP and the union movement in Canada. Both have touched my family significantly and personally, so I am in a unique position to comment on Bill C-7.

The one area in Bill C-7 that I have great difficulty with is the provision that would not allow members to vote in a secret ballot environment on whether to certify or decertify at any time in the future. I would ask my colleague to expand upon this if possible. The secret ballot is a fundamental tenet of democracy in this country. All of us who sit in this place were elected by secret ballot. The Speaker of this assembly was elected by a secret ballot. It is the norm across Canada. Most provincial legislation ensures that secret ballots take place in union certification drives.

Does my friend and colleague believe that the bill should contain a provision to allow secret balloting? Could she comment on why the government seems so steadfast against allowing our RCMP members to vote in a secret ballot environment, as every other Canadian would have the right to do?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, I have worked closely with members of the RCMP for over 18 years. A number of issues have been systemic, which as the former mayor working with the federal government and provincial governments, we have tried to overcome and work with.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that RCMP members have a right to a labour organization and to be represented. I support that 100%. The bill supports that element of the Supreme Court decision, and we would go forward with that.

There are significant elements that are not within Bill C-7, and because they are so fundamental and so underlying, I cannot support the bill.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to a very important issue that affects RCMP members across the country. I come from a city that is home to the largest RCMP detachment in Canada. I speak not only as a member of Parliament but also a former councillor and former mayor. Over those 18 years, I have seen many changes in the organization, and I have worked with many people who care very deeply about the RCMP members and the force.

For purposes of context, within British Columbia, all communities and cities, except for about seven, are policed by the RCMP. There is a provincial RCMP force in eight provinces. All large cities pay 90% of the cost for policing, and communities under 5,000 are supported. The 10% that the federal government pays is for the ability to pull 10% of the force at any given time to deal with federal issues or events.

As I mentioned, this is because many cities have grappled with numerous issues over the years, whether it was resources or lack thereof, equipment for officers, how to deal with the changing face of crime, how to better support members, or the cost of downloading. Some of these issues will continue to be a challenge while other issues are ever evolving. Cities have also had their challenges with ever-changing legislation, with results that only come to light when we see it played out on the front lines.

I want to note that it was the Supreme Court, not this government, that is responsible for this. The Supreme Court ruling held that the exclusion of members of the RCMP from collective bargaining and the imposition by management of a non-union labour relations regime was unconstitutional. Further, the current RCMP labour relations regime denied RCMP members choice and did not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from the influence of management.

I support the right of RCMP members to be represented, if they so choose, and to have a collective agreement in place. It can provide clarity and certainty, not only for members but management, and especially for the cities and communities they serve.

I took the opportunity to discuss this bill with many RCMP members across the country and in my own city, and I heard a number of concerns. While some of those concerns have been addressed and we were able to get the government to make amendments to the bill in committee, there are still concerns that remain.

I support the amendments to strike clauses 40 and 42, and I thank my Conservative colleagues for the work they did in committee to make that a reality. However, I feel there are still fundamental flaws with Bill C-7 and that the government is not listening to RCMP members.

As I stated earlier, there are issues that the organization continues to grapple with. Some programs have been put in place. However, certain issues continue to surface. I feel very strongly that we have an opportunity at this point to work together to finally address them and bring about the change that is sorely needed.

One of the fundamental tenets of any policing organization is safety, not only for the members themselves, but also their fellow officers and the general public. RCMP members should be involved in a meaningful way and have mechanisms in place to discuss any and all safety concerns, without the real or perceived threat of discipline. They should also have the ability to address working conditions within a respectful and supportive process.

In my opinion, this should not be part of the bargaining restrictions. It saddens me deeply, as it does every member in the entire force, that since 2006, 30 RCMP members have taken their lives. The most recent was here in Ottawa, on March 17 of this year.

Post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, mental and emotional trauma, are very real conditions within the workplace environment. What police officers witness and experience on a daily basis goes far and beyond what any one of us may experience in our entire lifetime.

I have always been an advocate for mandatory support measures to be in place for RCMP members. As we discuss Bill C-7, I feel we can strengthen and broaden the mandate to begin to address some of these issues.

One RCMP officer wrote me and said, “Essentially, this bill tells members of the RCMP that although they are trusted to put their lives on the line every day for Canada, Canada does not trust them to ask for appropriate changes to their working conditions, equipment, or harassment concerns”.

Each and every police officer should be supported and protected as they fulfill their duties. I have immense respect for the work they do on our behalf in our communities, and for our families. We should do the same for them. Therefore, I will not be supporting the bill in its current form.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak to the debate on a bill that has an impact on Canada's national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a police force that has been the pride of Canada for nearly 100 years.

As we look back throughout Canada's history, the RCMP contributed in many ways: from the march west from Fort Dufferin in Manitoba, to the last spike of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Craigellachie, British Columbia, back when the organization was known as the North-West Mounted Police, to the St. Roch's passage through the Northwest Passage, to the vital roles it played in World Wars I and II. The RCMP's history is indeed Canadian history.

The bill before us is another important step in that history because we are seeking to give RCMP members the right to collective bargaining for the very first time.

Bill C-7 will establish a labour relations regime for RCMP members that complies with the Constitution. This regime will give them the freedom to choose to be represented by a union and to negotiate with the employer so that their labour needs are taken into consideration.

For now, I would like to talk about the second and third amendments proposed by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

As with the labour relations regime that governs police forces across the country, Bill C-7 would exclude some elements from collective bargaining, particularly because of the unique nature of the work RCMP members do. These two proposals would remove conduct, including harassment, from the list of exemptions.

I know that all members share the concerns the hon. member raised about harassment in the RCMP, and this issue is particularly worrisome to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

I want to share a quote from the Minister of Public Safety's mandate letter, in which he is clearly instructed to “Take action to ensure that the RCMP and all other parts of your portfolio are workplaces free from harassment and sexual violence”.

The minister clearly indicated that he expects allegations of harassment in the RCMP to be handled with comprehensive, transparent investigations; strong discipline; support for victims; and plans to prevent toxic workplace behaviour.

To that end, he asked the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to undertake a comprehensive review of the force's policies and procedures on workplace harassment, and specifically to examine and evaluate the implementation of the commission's recommendations in its 2013 report.

Furthermore, as the minister emphasized to the committee, this is part of a whole set of initiatives under way to deal with this very troublesome concern, and there is more to come.

Other questions were raised in committee, and there was a lot of discussion about clauses 40 to 42. Under those provisions, the RCMP's occupational health care benefits for workplace injuries or illnesses would have been administered by provincial workers' compensation boards and coverage for RCMP members would have been similar to that of officers working in other police departments. This issue was examined at second reading and then again in committee, where several witnesses appeared to talk about it. In the end, it seemed that everyone agreed to defer consideration of this issue to a later date so that it could be examined in more detail, and these provisions were removed from the bill. This shows how committed our government is to respecting Parliament and the independence of parliamentary committees.

The government still believes that it is not ideal for employers to make the final decision as to whether an injury is work-related.

We will continue to work with the RCMP, its members, and the governments that have contracts with the RCMP in order to implement a long-term solution that will meet members' needs.

Nevertheless, the bill before us is one that would achieve the essential objective of allowing RCMP members to be represented by an employee organization of their choosing. 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. On top of that, the program was not independent of management. Bill C-7 would ensure that RCMP members' charter right to freedom of association is respected.

In addition, the legislation would ensure that any certified RCMP bargaining agent is solely focused on the the representation of RCMP members and would clarify that the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would have to consider the unique role of the RCMP in administering and enforcing the act. The bill also proposes binding arbitration with no right to strike, which would ensure both that the labour rights of RCMP members would be respected and that Canadians could continue to rely on the RCMP to ensure safety and security in communities from coast to coast to coast.

This bill's real purpose is to ensure respect for RCMP members' rights. They were consulted throughout the development of this new labour relations regime, and they are the focus of our attention as we study the bill before us today.

I will conclude by pointing out that, every year, RCMP members respond to well over two million service calls from Canadians while conducting all kinds of complex, long-term federal investigations related to organized crime, financial integrity, corruption, and terrorism.

In addition, as we have seen in northern Alberta, RCMP members are always ready to respond when tragedy strikes. From the onset of the crisis in Fort McMurray, the local RCMP and members of detachments across Alberta have acted in countless ways to support search and evacuation activities, and we will be forever grateful to them for the outstanding work they are doing during this extraordinarily difficult time.

To sum up, the bill before us would protect those who protect us by ensuring a labour relations regime that respects their rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech on this motion and his concern.

The reality is we cannot wait even for collective bargaining to take on this issue. The Prime Minister has committed that we as a government will ensure that the RCMP and all parts of the public safety portfolio are workplaces free from harassment and sexual violence. Also, the minister has already asked the RCMP to review its policies and procedures on this, and review the recommendations on the new process it put in place in 2013. Therefore, we do have a serious and non-negotiable expectation that there will be transparent investigations, serious disciplinary measures, support for victims, and a plan to end toxic workplace behaviour.

In the pay equity committee, the member's party is throwing out the idea of legislation from the previous government because it is bargaining a human right, i.e., pay equity, which they said should not be treated at the bargaining table. We agree with the member's party on that. Why is it not a place for this human right to be negotiated, whereas the member is proposing that it is a matter for negotiation with respect to Bill C-7?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important not to let the debate on an amendment that has to do with harassment and whether or not RCMP members would be allowed to bring issues of harassment to the bargaining table to get derailed by questions of process on certification. There will be time for that in the debate. There has already been a lot of discussion around that. There will be more opportunity for discussion on that at third reading. I would say, because what I have not heard in the arguments of some members is why a different rule should apply to RCMP members than a rule that will be applying to other Canadian workers who are federally regulated. The place for that debate is on Bill C-4, which will be coming back to this House, as well.

I just want to take some time to talk about however RCMP members get there, if they get there, to have a certified bargaining agent, the question we are talking about now with respect to this amendment is what that bargaining agent is going to be able to bring up at the bargaining table. That is the important issue, I think, with respect to debate on this amendment. I am pleased to rise in support of this amendment.

Members who have been following this debate closely will know that I argued at committee, with the support of my caucus, for an even greater lessening of restrictions on collective bargaining because we think that is required, frankly, in order to honour the spirit of the Supreme Court decision that was taken.

That ruling, and we actually heard quotes from that ruling from the hon. parliamentary secretary earlier, says very clearly that part of the impetus and reason for the kind of freedom of association that is guaranteed as a charter right and thereby also guarantees collective bargaining is that workers have to be able to have a meaningful recourse within their workplace and a way to identify their own priorities to bring them to the employer and to have a shot, I guess is the really informal way of putting it, at having some success.

If we are going to bring a bill forward that says for all the many reasons that RCMP members sustain a protracted court battle in order to get collective bargaining—those have to do with workplace safety and health; they have to do with the topic of this amendment, which is harassment and conduct within the workplace—if we are going to bring forward a bill in response to that decision that says, “Okay, fine. You have collective bargaining on paper but you can't bring any of those issues to the table. We don't even care what your proposals would be. We don't care how reasonable they would be. Before we know even what they are, we're going to rule them out of court through this legislation”, I think it does a real disservice to the Supreme Court's ruling. I think it does a disservice to members. I think it is a reason why, if we do not relax these exemptions, we are going to see, in very short order, another court battle and I think, eventually, if the Supreme Court continues to rule in the spirit that it has been on collective bargaining, we are going to see that this law does not pass muster.

We have an opportunity now to move forward with a bill that would actually give RCMP members what they asked for and what they fought for going through the court process. I still think there is going to be a lot of problems with the bill because there are so many other exclusions, but we will support this amendment because it is a way of making a bad bill a bit better. It is a bad bill that has a strong likelihood of passing, because the government seems quite committed to passing it in its present form. Why it feels such a loyalty to this form is beyond me. This is actually the language that was pulled out of a previous Conservative bill. The Liberals have not minced words when it comes to criticizing the previous government in terms of its approach and thinking. The Liberals certainly have not held back criticism of the previous government when it comes to its approach to labour relations, and yet, the first bill that they are likely to pass does not just adopt that same philosophy and approach, but it is actually for the most part word for word, the very same bill that had been contemplated by the previous government going back as far as 2010.

This amendment is a way, I think, of trying to bring the bill a bit closer to the spirit of the Supreme Court decision. I do not think it gets us there, but I think it is important for RCMP members, if there is a possibility of passing this amendment, and I hope there is, that would at least make things a bit better for them

I would argue, and have been arguing at length throughout this entire process, that it is not just an opportunity for RCMP members, but it is an opportunity for the institution as well.

We have heard, and we are hearing today from Liberals about how the government is engaging to work on the issue of harassment to improve it. The Liberals are going to study it, as if it had not been studied before, and then they are going to make some changes, and I wish them well in that. I am not saying that is not important. I am not saying that is not an important part of the process, but what we have here with the Supreme Court decision and now Bill C-7, if it is changed, is an opportunity to bring in a genuinely new approach, to do something genuinely different, and to allow RCMP members to bring their knowledge and expertise of the force and how things work on the ground directly into conversations with management.

For instance, if it is the case that Parliament is going to be addressing workplace issues in the RCMP, along with management, and it is going to take parliamentarians going around studying issues, having a law come before Parliament and passing through the two Houses in order to address workplace issues, then is it the view of the government that somehow that is a better process? Is that somehow more responsive than a process that would allow a union that represents RCMP members made up of the very people who are out there doing that good work on behalf of Canadians?

Consider the time that it takes for an issue to filter up through an organization, get media attention, and build public pressure for government to act on it, and it is unfortunate that with issues of sexual harassment in the RCMP we have reached that point. It means that it has become very bad. However, there are all sorts of other workplace issues that maybe do not get quite that bad, but are egregious nevertheless, which could be addressed by a process that actually consults the people who are doing the work on a day-to-day basis. We could get that kind of day-to-day or month-to-month feedback between the people doing the job and the people managing it.

If the model which says that somehow issues have to get bad enough that they come to Parliament and then we go out and study the issue, sometimes for years, and bring legislative changes, is how we are going to address issues in the RCMP, then I do not think one has to be a super business ideologue to say that this is just a bad model. It is just not efficient.

Why would we not want a model, if we are seriously trying to address an issue, that would allow us to get more frequent feedback, which does not involve a bunch of third party players, like parliamentarians, for instance, who do not have that day-to-day experience and do not have a real operating knowledge? It may be that some members of Parliament do have that experience, but if they do, it is a coincidence of the fact that a particular person was elected to represent a particular riding. I think it is fair to say that most of us in this chamber do not have that kind of day-to-day experience. Therefore, it seems wrongheaded to me to pretend that the most serious issues of the force are going to have to come here before they can be dealt with.

There is an opportunity here to have a better system, a system that RCMP members appreciate much more fully, that they are actually a part of. However, part of our point is that we should not prejudge the issue of whether this is going to work well or not. If it works well, it means that fewer of those issues are going to come to the House.

I would say that by the time issues get here, they have become really bad, and they are probably far away from being effectively solved. A good collective bargaining process can help us catch more of those issues early on, and resolve them in the workplace so that they do not have to come to Parliament to get fixed.

To the extent that this amendment, in a limited way, creates more opportunity for that kind of better process in respect of a certain issue, we are in favour of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his great remarks today in the House, and reminding all members that we are indeed here as a result of the democratic process that involves a secret ballot to show the will of the people, unburdened by pressures, their own vote, as it were.

The important thing to remember is that we are here on Bill C-7 as a result of a Supreme Court of Canada decision brought by an association challenging the inability under the Public Sector Labour Relations Act for the RCMP to form a union. However, the front-line men and women in uniform across the country have never actually had their say on this process.

I would ask my colleague to weigh in on the fact that Bill C-7 is the government once again denying the right of the rank and file members to weigh in on this process, which many have concerns about, and the secret ballot vote would allow everyone to have their say.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member and I were watching the same Charbonneau commission. Personally, what I remember from that commission is that, unfortunately, people in positions of authority in the unions violated the fundamental rights of union members to have proper representation. That is exactly the opposite of what we saw.

On this side of the House, we believe that, in order to be free of any express, malicious influence on the part of the union authority over the newly unionized members, voting should be done by secret ballot. That way, everyone can vote in good conscience, in a voting booth, and make the choice that they are most comfortable with. Voting by a show of hands or by identifying oneself, while three or four people are watching each individual closely to see who is on their side, is not necessarily the best way to go about it.

On this side of the House, we believe that secret ballot voting is the best way to give people who want to form a union even more strength and authority, whether we are talking about Bill C-7 or Bill C-4.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House to speak to Bill C-7. Throughout the discussion I will take the opportunity to emphasize that, even though I am not my party's critic on the matter related to this bill, two aspects of it concern me in both form and substance.

Bill C-7 concerns the 28,000 officers of the RCMP, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

This bill was introduced in response to the Supreme Court's January 2015 decision in Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada concerning the right of association of RCMP members. In its ruling, the Court gave the government one year to introduce legislation on the right of RCMP members to associate. That deadline was extended to May 16, 2016.

That is the first thing that I wanted to mention, as it reminds us of what we are going through, in terms of form, with the study of Bill C-14 concerning medical assistance in dying, in which I was directly involved.

RCMP members were not unionized, but they were part of groups and could have discussions with the employer under the staff relations representative program, which was established in the 1970s. It worked quite well, but was challenged by some groups of RCMP officers in Ontario, which resulted in this decision.

For the benefit of the Quebeckers who are watching, I should explain that the RCMP is also the largest police force in eight out of 10 provinces. Ontario has the Ontario Provincial Police, Quebec has the Sûreté du Québec, and the other provinces have the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is the police force that enforces the laws and regulations and maintains order in Canada.

The Supreme Court ordered the government to pass legislation conferring on RCMP officers freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. It was at that point that our government, which was in power at the time, began to clear the way for drafting this legislation, under the direction of the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

Negotiations concerning freedom of association, agreements governing salaries, and all such matters do not happen overnight. We need to take the time to do it right, and that is the point we have reached.

The current government introduced Bill C-7. We agree on the principle of the bill, but we had some serious problems with some of the clauses. Therefore, during the clause-by-clause study, my colleague, the hon. member for Durham, who was a minister and who is a lawyer and a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, proposed some very important amendments.

Clauses 40 and 42, which were deleted from Bill C-7, had to do with health care and insurance provided to RCMP members. We are very happy that the government listened to the Conservative member for Durham with respect to deleting these two major clauses.

However, we do not recognize freedom of association in the same way as the government. We have two opposing views. This is also the case with another bill, Bill C-4, which I am working on in my role as employment and social development critic.

What is the government proposing, and what would we have liked to see in this bill? We think that the right of association must be recognized, but that it should be subject to a secret vote that reflects the will of the members. This is a key element that we enshrined in Bill C-525, for example, which was passed by the House of Commons. This bill required that union certification, specifically when a group of workers is trying to unionize, be subject to a secret vote.

The Conservative member for Durham proposed that solution, but the government rejected it. We find that unfortunate. The sacred right of association must be enshrined in law so that, when it comes time to negotiate, that right is even more powerful, legitimate, influential, and authoritative. In our opinion, the best way to ensure and assert that authority and strength is establishing secret ballot voting.

We know what we are talking about here in the House of Commons. We were all elected by secret ballot. That way of doing things dates back to 1874. It is nothing new. Elected members of the House of Commons have been familiar with the principle of the secret ballot for a long time. The same is true for elected officials in the provincial legislatures across the country. Every elected representative is elected by secret ballot. The same is true at the municipal level. Our mayors and municipal councillors are elected by secret ballot. That is a given in our democratic system if we want those representatives to be powerful, strong, authoritative, and competent.

A solid foundation is needed when it comes time to negotiate and discuss and to ensure that people are properly represented. On this side of the House, we believe that the best way to give unions or union representatives more authority is to allow them to obtain that authority by secret ballot. We encountered exactly the same problem with Bill C-4, for which I am the official opposition critic.

Bill C-525, which was introduced by a Conservative member under the former government, enshrined in law regulations regarding unions and the creation of unions through secret ballot. All of us here, who have decision-making authority, obtained that authority because the people in our ridings voted for us. We think that, when people need to create a union or an association, their representatives, who will be given the authority to negotiate with their employer, should be chosen through the same approach.

That is fundamental, but unfortunately, the government members decided to do otherwise. That is the government's decision to make, but it is not what we would have done.

We believe that that element is fundamental and that the government should have acted accordingly. The Supreme Court specifically stated, in the ruling handed down in January of last year:

The flip side of...freedom of association under s. 2(d) is that the guarantee will not necessarily protect all associational activity.

From our perspective, the best way to give the newly formed group the necessary authority is a secret ballot.

I want to be clear. We support the fact that the 28,000 members of the RCMP, for whom we have a lot of respect, are doing a great job. It is the most honourable job in our country. They deserve a lot, and they deserve it for our citizens. We have a lot of respect for them. We agree with the fact that they should have the right to negotiate as a group. We recognize that. That is why our colleague, the hon. member for Durham, did a tremendous job at the parliamentary committee by pulling out two clauses, clauses 40 and 42, which were not as good as they should have been.

However, we are at a crossroads. The government prefers to have a way of recognizing the group that will represent the RCMP members. We believe the RCMP members would be better served if the election of those people as their representatives was done by a secret ballot vote in front of the government. That is why we agree with the principle of the bill, but unfortunately, we will not be supporting Bill C-4 because the government has failed to recognize that the secret ballot vote is the best way to ensure the strongest dignity of this group to be represented.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the opposite of what the member just stated. What I and the government are saying is that we are very concerned about harassment. I want to again reinforce that the member for Humber River—Black Creek devoted hours, days, and weeks to this issue, over a number of years, before being on the government side.

We understand how unfortunate and pervasive this problem is, and we know that it needs to be addressed. The question is whether collective bargaining is the place to do it. We believe that the minister is correct. He is seized with this matter. He is working on new legislation. It is not about either being in Bill C-7 or it is not being addressed. It is the opposite of that. This will be addressed, and that is the correct place to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-7. I applaud the bill and the process that led us to dealing with the bill today. It puts in place the labour relations regime that governs the RCMP members and reservists, and it respects their constitutional rights.

I want to say personally that I think it goes beyond respecting their constitutional rights. It is a statement of respect for who they are. The members of the RCMP and the reservists are people who make sacrifices for the Canadian public. They are willing to be on the front lines and put their lives in danger. They are posted anywhere in Canada, so their families need to be willing to support relocation and disruption of family life. They do this all in defending the safety and security of the Canadian public and our country. I respect them for that, and I am pleased that we are respecting the members with this bill.

Bill C-7 recognizes and responds to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Mounted Police Association of Ontario versus the Attorney General of Canada.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the main parts of the RCMP's current labour relations regime were unconstitutional.

For one, the court struck down the inclusion of RCMP members from the definition of “employee” in the Public Service Labour Relations Act as unconstitutional. Morever, the court held that a section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations infringed upon the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court affirmed that subsection 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 RCMP's case, the court found that, and I quote:

...the current labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management's influence.

In fact, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations imposed the staff relations representative program on RCMP members.

The aim of the program was that at every level of hierarchy, representatives and management would consult on human resource initiatives and policies, with the understanding that the final word always rested with management.

The court found that the staff relations representative program did not meet the criteria necessary for meaningful collective bargaining. Under this program, RCMP members were represented by an organization that they did not choose themselves. What is more, they had to work within a structure that lacks independence from management.

Clearly, this process failed to achieve the balance between employees and employer that is essential to meaningful collective bargaining. Therefore, the court held that this violated the charter right to freedom of association.

The bill is a direct response to the Supreme Court decision and is meant to address the ways in which the RCMP labour regime was found to be unconstitutional.

First of all, the bill removes the exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of “employee” in the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and changes the title of that act to “Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act”.

The bill also follows through on the court's finding that RCMP members must be allowed to choose the labour organization that represents them, and that the labour organization must be independent and free from management's influence.

Given that independence and freedom of choice were two key elements of the Supreme Court's decision, the bill before us today would take action to address both of those elements. It would provide RCMP members and reservists with the freedom to choose whether they wish to be represented by an employee organization which would be independent of the influence of RCMP management. As such, it would enshrine the constitutional freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining.

Personally, I am grateful for the Supreme Court's decision. It is an important decision that gives us the opportunity to modernize the labour relations regime that governs RCMP members and reservists.

The bill before us today harmonizes the labour rights that govern groups of federal employees with the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why Bill C-7 contains certain exclusions.

The RCMP is a national federal public sector police organization. Therefore, its labour regime must 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. For example, to be consistent, staffing, pensions, organization of work, and assignment 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 Public Service Labour Relations Act, for labour relations in the public service. This system has been in place for years, and it works. Bill C-7 is consistent with government's approach.

Bill C-7 also amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act, by adding a separate part to address the specific and unique circumstances of the RCMP as a police organization in the federal public sector. We did hear in committee many times how unique the RCMP is, and we know how unique it is in our communities. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, it is a national force, and the members can be posted anywhere across the country, with all of the implications that has for their families.

RCMP-specific matters that are excluded from a collective agreement or an arbitral award include the deployment of RCMP members, conduct and discipline, law enforcement techniques, RCMP uniforms, medals, and orders of dress. These matters relate to the effective management of this unique police force and the broader accountability of the RCMP for the safety of Canadians.

It is important to note that the legislative provisions establish a number of other mechanisms outside the official collective bargaining process, which allow the employees to advance their objectives and interests using a collaborative and solutions-based approach.

For example, the RCMP Pension Advisory Committee is making recommendations on the administration, development, and funding of pension benefits. Then we have the workplace health and safety committees. It is their role to work with the employer on developing, implementing, and monitoring workplace safety programs and to resolve safety-related problems.

There are also the labour-management relations committees, which deal with workplace issues such as harassment and disclosure of wrongdoing.

On the subject of harassment, I can assure my colleagues that the government takes this matter very seriously and the minister is working on legislation to address this.

The Minister of Public Safety did come to the committee. He takes it seriously, and the government is seized with this issue. The government and the RCMP's goal is to strive for a workplace that is free from harassment, so that when an allegation occurs, there will be robust processes in place to safely and effectively resolve the issue.

Today, we have a historic opportunity to enshrine the constitutional freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. I encourage all my honourable colleagues to seize the opportunity before us and support this very important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, this was in evidence before the committee, and was well explained by a lawyer with a lot of experience in labour relations. I once practised in labour relations, but is has been a couple of decades. However, Paul Champ has worked in the area of labour relations and has actually taken on some of these cases.

Mr. Champ was asked directly by the hon. member for Burlington what the implications would be, from a legal point of view, of taking out the words, “including harassment”, from the bill. His response was that we would have an association negotiating some clause in the collective agreement that would say “fair treatment in the workplace”, or “no harassment in the workplace”, but it would not open the floodgates. Members would not be able to bring in a case to adjudication on their own. It would have to be approved by their bargaining association.

What is more, which was very clear from his response, is it would only create the opportunity for a collective agreement on this point. It still is a matter of free and fair bargaining between the RCMP management and the RCMP workers as to whether they want to have a provision that deals with harassment in their collective agreement. However, what we do by removing the words “harassment” from Bill C-7 is give them the possibility of free and fair collective bargaining on an issue that is of paramount importance to fairness, decent treatment, and human dignity in the workplace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on her passion and insight. I agree with much of what she has said, including that the RCMP is one of the finest police forces anywhere, and that harassment is a problem which needs to be better addressed. We need a better regime, and we need to end an abusive culture. However, is collective bargaining the place to do that?

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has said that this is a priority for him. He is currently developing legislation to address just that. The Government of Canada takes harassment very seriously and is addressing it.

When Bill C-7 was in committee, there was agreement among the members present to request that the commissioner and the RCMP team come back to talk about what would be part of a change in culture and what the plans were to do that. Would the member support having the RCMP coming back to the committee to begin that work of changing the culture in the RCMP?

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

,

seconded by Mr. Louis Plamondon, moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-7 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-7, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting line 15 on page 20.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-7, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting line 25 on page 21.

She said: Mr. Speaker, I will note parenthetically that I would reserve the right to come back to you to argue more substantively on the question of the rights of smaller parties in relation to report stage.

It is very clear, though, as you have outlined, Mr. Speaker, that in this case there had been no direction from the committee to afford an opportunity, one that I would either welcome or resist, to appear before committee as opposed to having this opportunity. In our system of our parliamentary democracy, it is a very fundamental issue that all members of Parliament are equal, and it is our job, as to our abilities and our efforts, to equally contribute to the passage of legislation.

To the matter of Bill C-7, we have before us important legislation to create, for the first time, the ability of RCMP officers to collectively bargain with their employer, to unionize the workforce to have an opportunity to work together as employer and employees to set out how that working relationship would go forward and to give rights to the RCMP officers collectively to bargain.

This should not really just rely on legislation. We go back to the B.C. hospitals case. The Supreme Court of Canada was very clear on this matter, that all workers had the right to collectively bargain, whether they were in a position to form a union or not. In fact, in the B.C. hospitals case, it was made very clear that labour rights were human rights.

Why do I bring forward this very critical amendment? I hope members of Parliament from all sides of the House will give my amendment serious consideration to improve this legislation. The amendments are essentially sub-deletions within a section, therefore they are considered substantive amendments and only a member of Parliament in a party with fewer than 12 MPs at this stage in our proceedings is in a position to put forward this amendment. I hope many members of Parliament from other parties will actually be grateful that we have this one opportunity to improve the legislation substantively before passage.

Here is the problem with the sections that my amendments would delete. They would pre-empt the collective bargaining process to say that the collective agreement could not include conditions relating to “conduct, including harassment”. All I am attempting to do is remove that line, to remove the pre-emptive legislative act of taking out of the hands of collective bargaining the opportunity to ensure that the collective agreement between RCMP officers and their employer has the possibility of provisions to protect the workers from harassment.

I want to stress again that by passing this amendment, the legislation would not insist upon the inclusion in a collective agreement of steps to protect workers from harassment. It would only leave that opportunity open to them through the process of collective agreements.

I am actually baffled that we are even having this conversation in 2016 about the rights of RCMP officers to collectively bargain to protect themselves from harassment. The number of complaints that make their way to the public media are fewer than the ones that actually occur. I am in touch with several RCMP officers who have filed complaints against their superior officers or their colleagues for sexual harassment, but their cases are still private and I will not mention their names. However, I will mention the names of women who have been sexually harassed within the RCMP and have come forward.

It is certainly not news to any member of this place that we have an unacceptable degree of sexual harassment within the RCMP. Far too many fine, well-trained exemplary officers find themselves unable to work in a toxic workplace, file a grievance for sexual harassment, and then find themselves completely alone. They often have to go their doctors who tell tham that they are basically dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder, that they cannot go back into that workplace, and they are given notes for sick leave. Officers who could be contributing to putting people behind bars, to helping to take evidence, and to helping to put a case together are home on sick leave while their harassers are at work. There needs to be some rebalancing here.

I refer to the recent case of Corporal Catherine Galliford, which was settled out of court. It was not an internal RCMP sexual harassment complaint, she actually went to court, after years of sexual harassment. She said “What broke me is that I had no one to go to for help”.

That struck me when I was dealing privately with some of the RCMP officers currently involved in internal harassment complaints. I did not realize how grim it was for women within the RCMP when they filed a complaint of sexual harassment. They have no access to a union rep to help them through the process. They have no help in getting a lawyer to protect them and their rights through the process. They are isolated and essentially harassed all over again because they are shunned by other members of the force because they have filed a complaint.

This place has dealt with how we handle issues of sexual harassment within Parliament. We have issues of sexual harassment on university campuses. We are looking at an unacceptable acceptance of misogamy and sexism in various places throughout our society. We have the chance to make one small amendment to Bill C-7, which would give RCMP officers, male or female, the right to have a mechanism in place in a collective agreement to deal with inappropriate conduct within the force.

I do not need to remind members of the evidence, which RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulsen spoke to recently. He said that he really did not need to have it pointed out to him that it was unacceptable for RCMP officers to wander around naked at the office.

Conduct provisions in a collective agreement should be open to the employer and employee to negotiate what level of conduct they can stand, what level of support a victim of harassment, male or female, needs to continue to do his or her job.

Given the extraordinary degree of public awareness of the problem that women in the RCMP face, given the unacceptable conduct in a minority number of cases of men being mistreated within the RCMP, and given that we know the RCMP is one of the finest police agencies on the planet, we want support the RCMP going forward to clean up what many members of the force have referred to as an unacceptable culture, an abusive culture. This legislation is one of the mechanisms to do that.

Why would we as lawmakers pre-empt collective bargaining? As members can see from my amendment, there is no attempt to remove the specific terms or conditions that should go into a collective agreement related to policing. The provisions that would be left in place cover a lot. The collective agreement shall not touch on law enforcement techniques, or transfers from one position to another, or appraisals, or probation, or anything related to carrying out the duties. Anything related to what he or she must do as an RCMP officer cannot be in a collective agreement. I understand why lawmakers would take that stand.

However, why would we remove the possibility of a proper regime to assist any member of the force who needs the support of a union, a lawyer, a counsellor, whatever provisions can be worked into a collective agreement through free, unfettered collective bargaining? Why would we close the door on an RCMP officer's ability to access collective agreements that would include rules, guidelines, and a framework to deal with harassment?

I want to focus the House's attention on the fact that this is one single amendment. It is not an attempt to slow down the passage of the bill. It is not vexatious. Using the democracy that exists through the Westminster parliamentary system that allows any member of Parliament to improve legislation at report stage, I invite all of my colleagues, whether they were on committee during clause-by-clause or not, to take a fresh look at the bill in the hope of improving it. Let us ensure that the House speaks with one voice and supports every woman in the RCMP who has ever been harassed. Let us end an abusive culture by giving them real rights in collective bargaining agreements to improve the conduct of the RCMP and end sexism within the RCMP, end an abusive culture once and for all.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The Chair would like to rule on the selection of report stage motions for 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. Specifically I would like to address report stage Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on the Notice Paper.

This being the first report stage debate of this Parliament, it affords the Chair an opportunity to remind the House of the Speaker’s role in selecting report stage motions, and the practice that guides it.

In deciding the matter, the Chair is bound by our established practice in relation to the Speaker's role at report stage.

A note to Standing Order 76.1(5) states:

The Speaker will not normally select for consideration by the House any motion previously ruled out of order in committee and will normally only select motions which were not or could not be presented in committee.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, sets out the following general principle with respect to the selection of report stage motions. At page 783, it states:

As a general principle, the Speaker seeks to forestall debate on the floor of the House which is simply a repetition of the debate in committee […] the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee.

On June 9, 2015, at page 14830 of Debates, the Speaker in the last Parliament referenced these passages. At the time, he said: “Both these excerpts point to an essential truth about report stage, namely that it is not meant to be another opportunity for detailed consideration of the clauses of a bill. For this reason, the Chair rigorously limits the types of motions that could be considered at report stage. In so doing, the Chair rests on the presumption that a committee's clause-by-clause consideration provides ample opportunity to scrutinize the clauses of the bill and have amendments considered accordingly”.

This principle continues to be applied with due regard to the particular circumstances of each case.

At the time that clause-by-clause occurred for Bill C-7, the committee had not yet adopted a mechanism to allow for the participation of members from non-recognized parties in committee. I am not certain, however, that the Chair would agree with the presumption that, in light of this, report stage would be the only vehicle available to these members to propose amendments to the bill.

Committees have shown great flexibility in the past in how they consider amendments at clause-by-clause. In describing this flexibility, we refer to the much repeated axiom: “Committees are masters of their own proceedings”.

With that said, Bill C-7 was one of the first bills to be considered in committee in the 42nd Parliament, and with committees still trying to determine how members from non-recognized parties could participate in committee proceedings on bills, a certain amount of flexibility is appropriate in this instance.

As such, I will allow the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to move her Motions Nos. 2 and 3, even though they ought to have been moved in committee.

I would like her and all members to understand, however, that in the future, the Chair will be stricter in exercising his authority at report stage. Unless truly exceptional circumstances arise, the Chair will not select report stage motions that could have been moved in committee. I encourage all members to make efforts to have amendments dealt with in committee, so that report stage does not become a repetition of the committee clause-by-clause study of a bill.

Accordingly, Motions No. 1, 2, and 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the House.

The House proceeded to the 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 Motions Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, as always.

This afternoon, as everyone knows, we will continue our debate at second reading of Bill C-15, the budget. We will continue this important debate tomorrow.

On Monday, I know members are really looking forward to this. We are going to commence report stage and third reading debate on Bill C-7, the RCMP labour relations bill, until 2 p.m. In the afternoon, we will resume debate on Bill C-15.

I am hoping and working hard to reach an agreement with my colleagues in the House to be able to conclude the debate on Bill C-15 on Monday evening. That certainly would be my hope. I think Canadians would benefit from that legislation being in committee. Those conversations are ongoing.

On Wednesday, we will resume debate on Bill C-7.

Finally, next Tuesday and next Thursday will be opposition days, something I know members are looking forward to a lot.

Public Safety and National Security

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It is a new world that shows you how Parliament is working. It's quite wonderful.

Now I'm going to ask that we consider clauses 43 through 73. Shall they carry?

(Clauses 43 to 73 inclusive agreed to)

Now we have some enabling motions.

Shall the title carry, which is 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? Such an uninteresting name compared to the old names.

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

Mr. Chair, I think our concerns have been expressed, and through the witnesses, we explored this issue from the introduction of the bill. I think this is something that RCMP management can bring forward in separate legislation beyond the collective bargaining agent elements of Bill C-7.

If the government is willing to strike clauses 40 and 42 for the purposes of Bill C-7, we appreciate their willingness and we are ready to vote.

[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.

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I speak for Conservative members, Mr. Chair—or I may be corrected if they want to weigh in on these amendments—when I say that the amendments certainly contradict the basic direction given in the survey, in that members want an RCMP-specific union that will be able to serve the unique needs of a paramilitary organization, as was canvassed at length within committee testimony. That is consistent with direction from the Supreme Court, which has said the Wagner model is not required in all situations and that as long as employee choice and independence are met, the bargaining agent can be narrow to the group impacted by the bargaining.

I would also suggest that despite some of the nice comments about sharing boardrooms and things like that between one union and another, the power imbalance that leads to the need for a union now exists in the creation of these mega-unions that lump together a whole series of workers who do not have shared interests, whereas the collective of the mega-union has weight and power vis-à-vis the employer. In the case of the RCMP, we really want to make sure the needs of the front-line members are respected by a unique and specialized bargaining agent, but this is the creep of other unions trying to then subsume or affiliate, and I don't see that being in the members' interests at all. It clearly runs contrary to the survey and to the intention of Bill C-7, so we'll be opposing both amendments for that reason.

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

Okay, guys. I promise this is my last time, Mr. Chair.

I will endeavour to answer my colleague who, as I said, had three decades on the force himself, so he understands these issues far better than any of us.

The issue is if the employee choice element is provided in secret ballot and, although it's probably unlikely, if it is voted down by the rank and file in the force across the country, Bill C-7 in passing in whatever form would still have the framework if in the future they then opted for it. It would still be there, but the employees would not certify the bargaining agent that would have had certain abilities granted by Bill C-7, so we could still pass this.

It's our position that we should be giving choice to those individual members, the men and women across the country serving on our behalf in sometimes very dangerous and difficult circumstances. That's fully compliant with the Supreme Court decision; in fact, it's a fundamental tenet of it. Bill C-7, all of this stuff, and then the tack-ons on clauses 40 and 42 that we're going to talk about later would still exist.

That will be our final volley, I think, on this issue.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Well, perhaps Ms. Gallant can clarify. Is it that the membership of Parliament would vote in favour of Bill C-7, or...?

I'm not clear on what you're asking.

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

WelI, I would ask that the clerk weigh in. This committee and Parliament are seized with Bill C-7. I could bring Bill C-whatever in the future. We don't do bills in tandem, so Bill C-7 is as it stands, as the law stands now, and does not reflect how a Parliament may change related laws through a different bill. This is not cross-referenced. We are permitted to provide this amendment as the law stands today.

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

In interests of making sure we have time for adequate consideration of everything, I think the Conservative Party will summarize our position.

If you actually look to the court decision, which I hope all members of the committee have read—I'm sure they have—you see that employee choice was the cornerstone. The two elements of why we're here today and why we have Bill C-7 were employee choice and sufficient independence.

I think we don't have any concerns about the independence. For the staff relations program, the court did not think it was independent enough, so the new bargaining agent will be independent.

The other element was employee choice. To get there, employees need the choice. There is no better way: the fundamental tenet of democracy is the secret ballot, so that nobody—employer or union organizer—knows an individual officer's opinion on the subject. Even the survey we're debating, which Mr. Mendicino referenced as well, asked individual people for their opinion on things. They weren't just signing a card presented by someone walking around the room.

The choice should be something that people are able to reflect on in private. Then we will be satisfied that if members vote in favour of a bargaining agent, we will know that is the will of the force.

If people vote this down, I think they're essentially depriving front-line people in little detachments across this country of their ability to weigh in on this decision that is impacting them and their families.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)), Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to call this meeting of the public safety and national security committee to order. This is our 12th meeting for this Parliament.

Our purpose today is to do a clause-by-clause 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, which has been referred to this committee.

I just want to begin by thanking the committee for its diligence in this consideration of the bill. All members from all parties have participated, I think, extremely well. This has been under a very tight timeline, with a Supreme Court decision that required the legislation to come and be passed very quickly in this Parliament, and you've met the challenge so far. We'll see how we do today.

We have heard witnesses and we're now ready to go through the bill clause by clause.

Since this is the first time that this committee, or in fact any committee in this Parliament, has done clause-by-clause consideration of any legislation, and because we have a fair number of new members of Parliament, I thought I'd just take a few minutes to explain how this process works and how we actually consider a bill so that you can have it in your head as we go. I apologize to the veterans on the committee who have been through this many times before.

As the name indicates, this is really an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I'll be calling each clause successively, and each clause—there are just over 70 clauses—is subject to debate and then a vote, so we'll be voting as we go through, and then there will be a final vote on the bill itself. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I'll recognize the members who have proposed them—and we have received some amendments—and they can explain them.

Also, we have guests, witnesses who have been invited today for their expertise, to help us particularly with those amendments. I will be giving them an opportunity to speak at the time amendments are proposed so that they can help clarify any issues, and members can question them.

I also want to recognize that any MPs who are here and at the table will be recognized by the chair to speak. That includes, on either side of the table, obviously the voting members of the committee, meaning those who are the members here representing their parties, but anybody who is here can also ask a question for clarification or to further the understanding of the committee.

When no further members wish to intervene on a particular amendment, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member has received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together. There may be one exception to that, but we'll get to that.

In addition to having to be drafted properly in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. I could be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the crown.

Also, if you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, that's not an amendment. Rather, the proper course of action at committee is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to it. If you choose to vote against a clause, I will simply call the clause and then you can vote yea or nay.

We'll go slowly today, maybe a little bit more slowly than we will the second or third or fourth bill that comes here. I want you all to feel very free to stop me in the process if you're not understanding either the process or the substance of what we are doing.

If you decide not to vote on a clause and say that you want to consider it later, we can hold it till the end of the meeting. I may seek permission and unanimous consent to group some clauses together if there have been no amendments to them. We'll see how we're doing on that as we go.

As I told you earlier, the committee will go through the package of amendments in the order in which they appear and vote on them one at a time, unless we decide that they should be voted on together. Amendments have been given a number—in the top right-hand corner of the pages—that indicates which party they came from. There's no need for a seconder in order to move an amendment.

Once an amendment has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment. Obviously we have amendments that came in by the deadline. That doesn't mean that other amendments are not eligible in the course of deliberation today. You can propose other amendments as we go. We always prefer it if they're in writing, and if they're in writing it would be preferred for them to be in both official languages. However, a verbal amendment would also be in order.

During the debate on each amendment, subamendments are allowed. You can move them. Subamendments do not require the approval of the mover. There's no such thing as a friendly amendment, by the way.

We'll follow the strict rules of procedure with regard to subamendments. A subamendment will be considered first and it will be voted on, then we will vote on the amendment if it's still standing, and then we will vote on the clause itself. Another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, we will then vote on the title and the bill itself. If the amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill will be required. I will be asking you for that permission so that the House has a proper copy to use at report stage.

Finally, you will have to ask me to report the bill to the House, and I'll ask for your permission to do that. The report contains only the text of the adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Are there any questions about our procedures before we begin?

It's a smarter-than-average committee, so I'm pretty hopeful as we go through this.

Again, thank you.

I also want to thank staff who are serving the members through this process. Your work has also been really good as we've been doing it, so thank you for doing all of that.

We're set to begin.

This is 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.

We're now going to consider the first clause.

Right now we have no amendments that have been received for clauses 1 through 32. What I'd like to do is see if there is unanimous consent to present clauses 1 through 32 and to see if we can vote on them together. I would need unanimous consent to do that.

(On clauses 1-32)

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness proposed outsourcing RCMP occupational health to provincial compensation boards in Bill C-7, he claimed that compensation would be reasonably consistent across the country. Yesterday in committee, we heard that in Lloydminster in his own province this could result in thousands less for one RCMP member depending on which detachment that officer came from, the Saskatchewan side or the Alberta side.

When will the minister acknowledge our concerns about fair treatment and strike clauses 40 and 42 from Bill C-7?

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

That leads to my second question.

Bill C-7 is the government's proposed response, at least in its present form, but you point out a number of concerns with it, some of which relate to the exclusions.

Concerning harassment, there's a report, which was apparently just posted on the RCMP website, called “Results and Respect in the RCMP Workplace”. I don't know whether you've had a chance to access it.

[Paul Champ]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the committee members and the chair for this opportunity to assist you in your review of this very important bill to introduce the right to unionization and collective bargaining to RCMP members. In its way, it's really quite an historic moment. There have been efforts by men and women in the RCMP for over 50 years to unionize, and they have been consistently resisted by governments of the day. This is now a moment for RCMP officers to exercise these freedom-of-association rights. It's a very important bill for that reason.

So that you know my perspective on this, I'm a lawyer in private practice—a labour lawyer—and I have had the great honour and privilege of representing numerous RCMP officers from across the country in labour disputes over the years, in all the different provinces—or divisions, as they're established in the RCMP. I've dealt with disciplinary matters, promotional cases, harassment cases, whistle-blower cases, occupational injuries, duty to accommodate, and racial and sexual discrimination cases, all in the context of the RCMP. From that experience, I believe I have a pretty good sense of the recourse mechanisms under the RCMP Act that are available to all RCMP members. I want to offer my views on these to you.

The main issues I want to address are the exclusions, about which you've heard a lot, but I'll offer some insight on those as well as on the grievance system that you would have under this bill. It's quite complex now concerning where your recourse goes. Is it a disciplinary matter? Is it a collective agreement matter? Is it a promotional matter? There are different avenues that you have to follow. This, I think, makes recourse very difficult.

I can tell you that even before this bill, this was one of the more complex labour regimes that I have to contend with. I represent all kinds of federal public sector workers, from across the board—every department you can imagine. I represent CSIS officers, CSEC...so I have a sense, and the RCMP Act is very complex as it is right now.

The final issue is the workers' compensation matter. I have some views on that, and I'd like to offer them to you as well. I was going to address it last, but I'll address the workers' compensation one first, because I think the exclusions have been hit pretty well by the other presenters.

Right now, as you're no doubt aware from previous presentations, RCMP members are entitled to full pay from their employer while on sick leave, and the causality doesn't matter. Whether it is a workplace injury or some other kind of illness doesn't matter; they get their full pay. What this bill proposes to do in clause 40 of Bill C-7 is push all RCMP members onto different provincial compensation schemes across the country.

I want to say this right now. If you make any changes or recommendations for any changes to the bill, change this one. This one doesn't make sense, and here's why.

I reviewed what the ministers told you last week, suggesting that the approaches of the different provinces are reasonably consistent and that there are not big discrepancies between provinces. They also told you that this system seems to function well for federal public service employees, who are in the same way governed by provincial compensation schemes based on the province in which they're employed.

The RCMP are very different, for three reasons.

First of all, RCMP officers are involved in more physical work than other federal public service employees and are more prone to injuries on the job. I think that's something we can all understand and grasp.

Two, RCMP officers have mobility built into their jobs. They are assigned and are posted to locations of work across the country and are reposted again and again. You'll see many RCMP officers with even 20 years or 25 years of service who have worked in two or three provinces throughout their career, and some of them even more than that. That's very different from federal public service employees, who typically work in one location their entire lives and who moreover get to choose. If you're applying for a job in Ottawa with whatever agency—say, the CRA—or for a job with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Vancouver, for example, you know what provincial compensation scheme you're going to be subject to.

If you're an RCMP officer, you don't have the right to choose and you don't have that knowledge. You could well be moved—and many are—to different provinces throughout your entire career. I think that is a fundamental difference from the conditions of federal public service employees that really makes this unfair.

Here is the third and final reason why I say you have to take this out of the bill, and that is the differential coverage across the country. It is a patchwork. They are not reasonably consistent.

Under workers' compensation schemes, there is maximum income coverage, so you are covered only up to a certain level of income, and they are very different across the country. The low is $51,000, and that is in P.E.I. The high is in Manitoba with $119,000 of annual income.

An RCMP constable at the top of the band earns $82,000 a year. Of all the 10 provinces, only three would provide full coverage to that constable if he or she was injured on the job and was off work. A dramatic example.... I am from Saskatchewan, so I always enjoy the examples we can draw from Saskatchewan; it teaches the country a lot of things. Lloydminster, as many of you are aware, straddles the border of Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is a really entertaining place for all kinds of reasons, but it also has two RCMP detachments. They are about two kilometres apart. I think one is on 47th Avenue on the Saskatchewan side, and the other is on 44th Street on the Alberta side.

In Saskatchewan, the maximum coverage for that member is $54,000 a year. In Alberta, it is over $90,000. It could well be the case that there is a very serious matter and RCMP officers from both detachments are called to a certain location. A terrible thing might happen and they both might be injured. Well, if you push these members on to the provincial compensation schemes, these two police officers, working side by side at the same incident, are going to have very different outcomes in what they get. The member who is posted to the detachment on the Saskatchewan side is going to earn, by my rough calculations, about $1,000 less per month than his or her colleague who is assigned or posted to the other side.

I wanted to highlight that. This is a bad idea and I think it is unfair to RCMP members. At a bare minimum, making this change right before you are about to see unionization, where an association might want to discuss or negotiate this with the employer, is a very bad idea.

I will turn to the other points I want to talk about, the exclusions. You have heard a lot about the exclusions. I will just hit on the points that I think are most significant, which are promotions and transfers, and harassment cases. These exclusions are not only a major issue due to the lack of free and meaningful collective bargaining, but they also push members into a very complex recourse system. In many cases, when you exclude these from the collective bargaining, they do not have the right of independent adjudication.

Under section 31 of the current RCMP Act, you go through internal grievance mechanisms. They do have adjudicators, but they are commissioned officers, superintendent or chief superintendent. When you are dealing with a situation where you are grieving the actions of a deputy commissioner or a commissioner—and I tend to get involved in cases that are more serious like that—you are going to a chief superintendent and saying, “Hey, can you overturn this decision of the commissioner?” Well, that is not going to happen very often.

The way this act works is that only collective agreement issues will go to the Public Service Labour Relations Board. When you combine that with all the exclusions, this really means that the only things you are going to see at the PSLREB are pay and comp issues. Some of the most important working terms and conditions that are so important to RCMP members are not going to be subject to that independent adjudication. I think that is a really big problem.

About promotions.... Reviews and studies over the last 20 years have repeatedly found that the views of RCMP members are that the RCMP promotional system lacks transparency and fairness. The Brown report from 2007, “Rebuilding the Trust”, said that the promotional system is “viewed almost universally as being ineffective, unfair and opaque.”

That was the Brown report in 2007, cited by the Supreme Court of Canada in the MPAO judgment.

The RCMP did another report of its own recently, called “Gender-Based Assessment”, published in 2012. I noticed they just suddenly posted it last week for some reason. There, they did a review and survey of members. Those members said that one of their most serious issues is “The lack of fairness and transparency in the promotional processes”. Yet promotional processes are kept completely out of collective bargaining or the independent grievance adjudication system that you would have going to the PSLREB. They have to continue to grieve up.

Promotions, I would submit from my experience over the years, are seen as rewards to those who belong to a club, to those who are seen as loyal, to those belonging to certain cliques that happen to be in ascendency within the force, and I honestly say I think that if you would get any member, even a commissioned officer, over coffee or a drink and ask them, they will tell you the same thing: that's how it works.

It's based on loyalty more than anything, not fairness or merit.

[Mark Rowlinson]

We had two other issues that we raised in our submission. Lesser issue one relates to limits to the grievance and arbitration process. The other relates to the concern about workers' compensation and the fact that under Bill C-7 RCMP officers may be subject to a sort of patchwork of workers' compensation benefits. I'll skip over those.

In conclusion, as an international union with strong ties to other unions throughout North America and globally, we are committed to the full expression of the right to freedom of association in collective bargaining. Bill C-7 in its present form limits these fundamental rights for RCMP officers in a manner that is, in our view, unnecessary.

We ask that the committee, in its clause-by-clause review of the bill, remove the barriers outlined in this submission and others, and ensure that the spirit and intent of the MPAO decision is enshrined in the legislation by allowing officers to exercise their right to free and independent collective bargaining.

[Mark Rowlinson, Executive Assistant to the National Director, United Steelworkers]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is Mark Rowlinson. I'm the assistant to the Canadian national director of the United Steelworkers. I've also been a practising labour lawyer for the union for about 20 years.

The United Steelworkers is one of the largest industrial unions in Canada, with about 225,000 members from coast to coast to coast. We're part of an international union that has about 800,000 members across North America. We represent a diverse membership in almost every part of the private sector, along with thousands of public sector workers in hospitals, nursing homes, universities, and among security guards. We also advocate on behalf of roughly 100,000 retirees and their families across Canada.

While many of our members work under provincial law regimes, we also represent about 25,000 members in the federal jurisdictions, including workers employed in airport security, transportation, energy, and telecommunications.

Labour legislation in all jurisdictions in Canada is important to our union, as it is to all labour organizations across the country. We are concerned about any legislation that may interfere with either the spirit or the substance of fundamental labour rights, like the right to join unions and the right to bargain collectively.

We're very grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today, as we're concerned about how the Government of Canada responds to and complies with the important Supreme Court of Canada decision in the MPAO case, which the Supreme Court issued a little over a year ago.

The MPAO decision was one of a series of decisions by our country's highest court that clarifies the scope of freedom of association and collective bargaining rights under the charter. We were a plaintiff in the SFL case that was issued a week after the MPAO decision, and we've long taken a great interest in how the charter and labour law regimes in Canada interact.

In MPAO, as the committee will be aware, the Supreme Court affirmed that freedom of association protects the right to join and form associations, to do so in pursuit of constitutional rights, and the right to join others to meet on more equal terms the power and strength of employers.

If I might pause for a minute, I want to read you an excerpt from the decision, where the Supreme Court noted, and I'll return to this:

Individual employees typically lack the power to bargain and pursue workplace goals with their more powerful employers. Only by banding together in collective bargaining associations, thus strengthening their bargaining power with their employer, can they meaningfully pursue their workplace goals.

It is precisely that set of rights that is protected under section 2(d) of the charter.

The Supreme Court continued, “The right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining is therefore a necessary element of the right to collectively pursue workplace goals in a meaningful way”, and “A process” or legislation, I would submit, “that substantially interferes with a meaningful process of collective bargaining by reducing employees’ negotiating power is therefore inconsistent with the guarantee of freedom of association enshrined in [section] 2(d)” of the charter.

We are here today to provide a few comments on Bill C-7, and to express our concern that in some areas Bill C-7 grants the right to join a union and collectively bargain to RCMP employees and officers on the one hand, but on the other hand it also erodes that right through limits on association and the scope of bargaining.

I want to review a number of points where we have concerns, given that background about Bill C-7.

First, is the configuration of the bargaining unit. In the bill under its present form, as the committee will be aware, civilian RCMP members are excluded from the bargaining unit. There is no justification, in our view, for excluding employees of the same employer from the bargaining unit, other than to erode the collective bargaining position of the union. In both federal and provincial jurisdictions across Canada, labour relations boards have for decades preferred broad-based, all-employee units.

While we agree with the bill's exclusion of officers in their capacity of management, the list of ranks that are considered officers is set by Governor in Council. The number of officers in each rank who are excluded, as prescribed by the Treasury Board, means the employer has essentially the exclusive power to decide who is included and excluded from the bargaining unit as an officer. This is an exception to the normal rule in Canadian labour relation regimes, which provides that managerial exclusions and other exclusions from the bargaining unit are determined by independent labour relations boards.

Second, and this is perhaps the one point I want to emphasize the most this morning, are the very vague and general limits on affiliation that are contained in Bill C-7.

Under Bill C-7, to be certified, an employee organization must be, among other things, “not affiliated with a bargaining agent or other association that does not have as its primary mandate the representation of police officers”.

We fully respect and understand the limit that the bargaining agent itself must be an organization that is primarily devoted to the representation of police officers; however, we are at a loss to understand this very general and vague point that the bargaining agent must not have any affiliation with other organizations. We submit that this is a serious infringement on freedom of association, and there are clearly less restrictive ways to deal with issues of the independence of the bargaining agent than this one.

We would refer the committee to the Ontario Police Services Act, which deals with this issue in a different way in that, for police unions in Ontario, the only limit to their ability to affiliate applies to individual members and prevents them from actually joining another union without approval. However, the Ontario Police Services Act appears to rightly allow collaboration and affiliation with members of other unions and other labour organizations.

This would seem, for example, to allow members of the RCMP union—should there be one—who are affiliated with other organizations to provide that union with advice, support, and so on and so forth, and would actually allow the police union to become a part of a broader movement and to seek the assistance of other organizations. We don't think that at all threatens the independence of the RCMP potential union and we think it is an important right for them. This could take the support in terms of one-off support for a particular campaign or initiative. For example, police unions across the country were very important in the campaign around Bill C-377, which was introduced by the former government, and worked within the broader movement on those sorts of issues.

We are suggesting that this restriction on affiliation, again, is extremely general and will be very hard to understand by someone from outside the organization and from the broader labour movement.

Our union, for example, has a wide range of different relationships with different unions. We have strategic alliances with some unions, we collaborate with other unions, and we provide resources, whether that's use of our buildings or collaboration or training with other organizations. Again, it's not clear to us that such a broad restriction is necessary.

The third point I want to comment on, and only very briefly, is limits on the scope of collective bargaining in Bill C-7. I know the committee has already heard a great deal about the limits on the scope of collective bargaining that are contained in the legislation, and I won't belabour the point other than to say that limiting the scope of collective bargaining, as the legislation does, in such a broad and pervasive manner, constitutes a significant infringement, in our view, on the rights of RCMP officers as enshrined in section 2(d) of the charter. We submit that the legislation is over-broad in precluding negotiation over transfers, promotions, discharges, and demotions; conduct, including harassment; the basic rights for carrying out the duties of an officer; as well as equipment matters.

Further, of course, Bill C-7 limits the outcome of binding arbitration. We understand and support the idea that collective agreements should be resolved by binding arbitration, but again, the fact that the arbitrator will be precluded from dealing with that wide range of issues in our view further reinforces the restriction and the possible infringement on section 2(d) of the charter. We would submit to you that it substantially interferes in their collective bargaining rights.

The fourth issue that I want to mention is the factors in the binding interest arbitration regime that is set forth for RCMP officers. Here Bill C-7 essentially provides that the factors that are already set out in the PSLRA to guide an arbitration board in imposing a collective agreement will also apply to the RCMP union, should there be one.

In particular, section 148 of the PSLRA, which was amended and implemented by the previous federal government, requires that the arbitration board consider:

(a) the necessity of attracting competent persons to, and retaining them in, the public service in order to meet the needs of Canadians; and (b) Canada’s fiscal circumstances relative to its stated budgetary policies.

These provisions of the PSLRA were introduced, as I mentioned, by the previous Conservative government, and the fact that they've been maintained in Bill C-7 we think is problematic. The fact that the legislation requires an arbitrator to give preponderant weight to these two factors compromises the independence of an arbitrator and creates a built-in bias in the interests of the arbitration process by essentially requiring an arbitrator, rather than to act independently, to implement what amounts to government policy.

Bill C-7 imposes an additional constraint on the arbitration process in that it provides that the board must consider “the impact of the determination on the operational effectiveness of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police” in imposing collective agreement terms.

This requirement is unique to Bill C-7 and is not required for any other federal public sector employees. Given that RCMP members do not have the right to strike and the fact that bargaining impasses must be resolved by way of interest arbitration, this is a new factor, which unnecessarily and in our view inappropriately biases the interest arbitration process in favour of the employer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We are going to start again with our second panel. It's a bit of a change, moving out of the RCMP and its directly affected parties in Bill C-7.

We have invited the United Steelworkers, as well as Paul Champ, who is a labour and employment lawyer, to join us for some of their thoughts and reflections on this bill, which for the first time will enable RCMP members to form a union, should they choose.

I'm going to suggest we start with Mr. Rowlinson, you have 10 minutes, followed by Mr. Champ for 10 minutes. Then, we'll continue with questioning.

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

How do you keep in touch with membership and how do you solicit their views on initiatives like Bill C-7?

[Paul Dupuis]

Bill C-42 will give Treasury Board the power to incorporate them into the public service at a later date. This is something that means that Bill C-7 contains specific provisions with regard to civilian members. And we do not know what the government's intention is concerning our civilian members. In our opinion, this is something else that must be discussed at the bargaining table.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you for your presentations and for the informal conversations we have had previously; this is all very helpful to our committee.

You have told us about certain problems, some of which we were already aware of. You were here last week when we discussed clauses 40 and 42 of Bill C-7. We were open to the discussion. Your comments were greatly appreciated.

Mr. Dupuis, I would like to address clauses 40 and 42.

There is a corollary aspect in clause 42. You had the opportunity to do this work, to be part of the organization and to become familiar with labour relations issues. We were told that some border officials and correctional officers work in border towns. At times, they may work in one province, and at other times in another, so that they move between two different systems.

Mr. Dupuis, could you tell us why this is a different problem when we're talking about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Please feel free to provide examples.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you guys for coming out today and providing testimony.

Part of what's at issue, and I guess I'll just touch on it because it's part of the conversation right now, is whether there's an opportunity created by the court to get beyond that institutional reluctance for collective bargaining, but we don't just buy the court fiat. I think there's a serious risk that Bill C-7 will actually entrench that institutional reluctance in law and make it more difficult to have bargaining in name only, or bargaining just for pay and benefits, when the concerns of members clearly go far beyond pay and benefits. It's not really living up to the spirit of that decision, and I think we need to be concerned about whether we're actually doing damage with Bill C-7 to the rights of members to raise certain issues in the workplace with the way that the bill is currently worded.

I don't have the credibility of having been in uniform, but I would say when I hear comments about sharing a uniform and therefore having faith in management to manage in a way that's fair to fellow comrades in uniform, it cuts both ways. I think there should be some faith given to members at the bargaining table by management who shared that uniform to bring forward reasonable proposals that have the interests of the organization at heart as much as their own interests as employees. I think the other side of that trust is really what's really missing in Bill C-7. It has a lot of layered protection for management and very little for the employees of the RCMP. It's perhaps not a coincidence that there was very little consultation with employees of the RCMP leading into that.

The chart that you brought here today I think is really helpful. It's been a missing component of the conversation so far. Just to try to get a better sense of what's really at stake with these exclusions, I'm wondering if you have an example, say, of law enforcement techniques. We have some examples in this chart of where law enforcement techniques have been discussed and agreements made at the bargaining table. Are you guys aware in any of those cases of the standard of law enforcement in those jurisdictions falling below an acceptable level, or serious discord or disorganization within the police force that discussed those things at the bargaining table? What was the consequence for those police forces? Did they subsequently fail as police forces because those things were discussed at the bargaining table?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of our witnesses who have testified today and some who have testified in our previous meeting who are here at the back of the room observing.

I'm going to start off with a comment, and then I'm going to go into something I think is important. Certainly I respect the service of everyone who dons a uniform. I wore a Canadian Armed Forces uniform. Jim beside me, my colleague, served over 34 years in the RCMP, so we have the utmost respect. I think that with the commentary of previous witnesses and your members we're going to make some progress on clauses 40 and 42, particularly if you look at Ontario, Alberta, and Manitoba, which have an approach to PTSD as being presumptive in the workplace of law enforcement.

That standard should apply across the country not just in the provinces that have the presumption. Ironically, this committee has postponed its study on PTSD for first responders to look at Bill C-7. I think nothing highlights the challenges that clauses 40 and 42 lead to more than that difference between the provinces when it comes to operational stress injuries.

I think I'll start with Mr. McKenna.

You served over 30 years in uniform. When you were in depot, like boot camp for me, those become some of your best friends in life. Did a few of your mates from depot make it to the inspector or above rank?

[Paul Dupuis]

I would like to say something to help you understand the situation.

Our goal is to ensure that everything is on the table, and that we have the opportunity to negotiate all of these issues. It is important to remember that the government plays a double role as both legislator and employer. It must not abuse its legislative role in terms of prevention or facilitation to benefit its role as employer. The rule of the opposition is not just to promote an ideological view, but also to ensure that the government does not abuse its double role.

As described by the Supreme Court, we want all aspects of members' working conditions to be open to collective bargaining. Putting various vague restrictions into small boxes, as Bill C-7 seeks to do, does not work. We will always be told that if we take this with that, it cannot be discussed—even though the goal of collective bargaining is to strike a balance between both parties and to allow issues to be discussed.

[Paul Dupuis]

No, because Bill C-7, the way it's written, uses the wording that was in Bill C-43 in June 2010, even before the Supreme Court rendered its decision. What I believe and what the AMPMQ says is that this is not a list.... The list does not reflect what's important for members. There should be no restrictions.

[Paul Dupuis]

Actually, Bill C-7 restricts these elements. What I am suggesting is that you remove all of those restrictions and leave it to the membership to decide which ones are important or not at the negotiation table.

[Paul Dupuis]

Yes, I can do that for you.

The separation of the elements that are in Bill C-7 is not our separation, but the employer's separation. We feel that uniform and equipment, as well as control techniques and certain other elements, such as minimum standards of policing, are all part of officer safety. There are these three elements. If you look at the comparison we did of the various collective agreements, most of which are still active and some of which are expired, you'll see that they demonstrate that these elements are negotiated in.

This is to answer a question that I think was posed by Mr. Mendicino on Thursday about why we want to be compared with other police services. Do other police services have these elements that are negotiated?

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

Thanks very much, everyone, for your testimony.

My first question relates to a chart that has been circulated with respect to a comparative analysis of existing collective agreements and Bill C-7 restrictions. Perhaps you could walk us through those, specifically with respect to health and safety. I take it these relate to law enforcement techniques, but also to uniform and equipment. Perhaps you could also walk us through the jurisdictions that don't have these exclusions.

[Paul Dupuis, President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, committee members, ladies and gentlemen.

I am Staff Sergeant Paul Dupuis. I have been a member of the RCMP for 35 years. I have been involved in labour relations in the RCMP since 1993 as a representative of members. I have been a member of the Association des membres de la police montée du Québec (the “AMPMQ”) since 1981 and I was elected president in 2015.

I have experienced first-hand and been a witness to abuse of power by RCMP management, and a counterweight is needed. Protecting people against abuse of power is best achieved by making all working conditions subject to collective bargaining. I appear before you today to provide you with AMPMQ's point of view on Bill C-7.

I will start by giving you an overview of the situation.

The members of the RCMP have been actively denied their right to freedom of association, in other words the right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining, for decades. The Supreme Court of Canada in MPAO v. Canada, decided that this violation was unconstitutional and that remedial legislation was required. Bill C-7 provides a process for an association to acquire collective bargaining rights for members. It also includes provisions to regulate collective bargaining. However, Bill C-7 falls short on several levels.

I will now discuss the right to a meaningful collective bargaining process.

The Supreme Court described a meaningful collective bargaining process as one that “provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to determine and pursue their collective interests.” It rejected the current scheme that “does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns.”

While Bill C-7 does provide a process for certifying an association and having access to a collective bargaining process, it falls short on several levels, in particular by the restrictions it places on the content of collective bargaining.

Bill C-7 excludes important workplace matters of concern to RCMP members from collective bargaining, and therefore does not permit members to advance those workplace concerns free from management influence. What's more, these exclusions from collective bargaining go to the heart of members' workplace concerns. Matters that were specifically subject to management's failures and abuses are excluded.

Workplace concerns over health and safety and law enforcement techniques, including adequate protective gear and equipment, are critically important to members. I will cite the examples of the Mayerthorpe and Moncton tragedies. Inquiries into these tragedies underscored the same deficiencies in proper equipment and communications, even though nine years had passed between these two incidents. The RCMP failed the public, members' families, and the members themselves. This was not the first time that the RCMP failed to live up to its obligations concerning health and safety.

I will now discuss the issue of harassment.

Harassment was, and still is, a serious workplace concern that management has been unable or unwilling to resolve. Despite multiple studies and reports, harassment continues to be alive and well within the RCMP. For example, I refer you to the well-known Lebrasseur, Delisle, Smith, Gosselin and Sulz cases, as well as two pending class actions, several individual suits, and numerous internal harassment cases.

I will now discuss management abuse and the need for balance.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized the well-documented use of the disciplinary process and unfair labour practices by the RCMP to prevent unionization. In fact, I have been a victim of the RCMP's use of the disciplinary process to retaliate against me for my union activities. I have been subject to reprisals. The RCMP used disciplinary procedures against me for seven years. As it was determined that the disciplinary action against me was abusive due to its length and nature, the internal tribunal granted a stay of proceedings. At the same time, I also submitted grievances. After 10 years, my grievances have yet to be resolved.

This situation has had a negative impact on my career. Consequently, Canadians have lost the benefit of my services as a specialized investigator in financial crimes. During my career, I have witnessed abuses of power by management which clearly illustrate the need to strike a balance.

The disciplinary process has been repeatedly used to sanction members for exercising fundamental rights, including freedom of association and freedom of expression. There are a number of reported decisions concerning RCMP retaliations against my colleague and predecessor Gaétan Delisle. You have also heard the testimony of my colleague Peter Merrifield, whose case is still before the courts.

Demotions, dismissals, transfers, appraisals, probation and basic requirements are all vital concerns relating to our working conditions that management can and does use abusively against members who exercise their rights. Over my years of service as a members' representative, I have been witness to the abusive use of all of these working conditions against members, with devastating effect on them and their careers. The Duxbury, Brown and Robichaud reports confirm these abuses.

No credible evidence has ever been presented that would justify excluding these working conditions from collective bargaining on the basis that police services would be compromised without those exclusions. On the contrary, addressing members' concerns regarding these working conditions through collective bargaining is more likely to improve the quality of police services. The Supreme Court stated the following regarding collective bargaining for RCMP members:

[...] it is not established that permitting meaningful collective bargaining will disrupt the stability of the police force or affect the public's perception of its neutrality. [...] The government offered no persuasive evidence to that effect. Empirical evidence tends to show the opposite [...]

More recently, before this committee, those who favour Bill C-7 have failed to provide any compelling argument for the proposed exclusions from collective bargaining. They have failed to assume their obligation to justify limiting RCMP members' fundamental rights.

My presentation will now address how to redress the imbalance in the employment relationship.

The Supreme Court recognized that laws and regulations that restrict the subjects that can be discussed in bargaining can disrupt the balance necessary to ensure the meaningful pursuit of workplace goals.

The Supreme Court also recognized a long-standing hostility on the part of RCMP management and successive Canadian governments to unionization in the force.

By excluding important workplace matters of concern to RCMP members from collective bargaining, Bill C-7 not only denies members the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining, it also enshrines the imbalance between members and management by preserving absolute power over these matters by management.

In the past, management has not hesitated to abuse its absolute power over members. Bill C-7, by limiting collective bargaining and limiting remedies against management abuse, fails to ensure that the current imbalance in the employment relationship is adequately remedied, as management retains absolute power over these matters.

We argue that grievances concerning the working conditions of RCMP members, even those not governed by the collective agreement, should be referable to an independent tribunal.

As for civilian members, they share a community of interests with regular members, yet they are excluded from Bill C-7. They should be included.

Last Thursday, you heard the debate concerning the Government Employees Compensation Act. The reform to medical services for RCMP members as proposed in sections 40 and 42 of Bill C-7 should not be part of this bill. Rather, they should be negotiated at the collective bargaining table.

I will now discuss what should be done.

We ask that you remove the exclusions from collective bargaining that concern important workplace matters, specifically sections 238.19 and 238.22 as proposed, as has already been mentioned, to strike a real balance between RCMP management and members.

We also ask that you include civilian members under Bill C-7, and that you remove sections 40 and 42 from the bill.

Thank you.

I am now ready to answer questions.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain, President, British Columbia, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

Good morning, Committee Chair and honourable members of Parliament.

My name is Patrick Mehain. I'm a director of the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association. I've been involved in the association movement my entire 18-year career. I was president of the B.C. MPPA for eight years. I sat as an executive on the CPA, and I'm one of the founding members of the MPPAC. I'm also one of the affiants in the Supreme Court challenge.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my concerns as they pertain to the significant shortcomings of Bill C-7. While the Liberal government is ensuring the Supreme Court decision is complied with, the bill misses the true spirit of the decision: the absence of a fundamental onus found in collective bargaining in other agencies.

The bargaining restrictions found in Bill C-7 and the existing PSLRA are more restrictive than those found in other police forces across Canada. Many collective bargaining agreements deal with promotions, equipment, transfers, workplace conflict, etc. While my colleagues in the MPPAC have already touched on these issues, I'll speak about resourcing and health care.

Resourcing has always been an issue. Our municipal brothers and sisters refer to us as the “Kmart cops”—we do more with less. Comparing the cities of Vancouver and Surrey, we see that Vancouver has approximately 1,340 officers and polices 605,000 people, while Surrey has approximately 800 officers and polices 500,000 people. Resourcing directly impacts members' vacations, minimum staffing levels, workloads, and I would suggest job satisfaction.

Members are getting burned out, and their health, both physical and mental, is being impacted. Due to long-term illnesses, spots are left vacant, the spots are held out in detachments, and units are required to run with shortages. Treasury Board wants to convert the approximately 4,000 civilian members into public servants. If this is allowed to happen, it will undermine resources even further in the RCMP, as our civilians to do jobs that public servants cannot.

Provincial health care and workers' compensation is different from province to province. The RCMP is unique and requires a unique way to address these concerns. In B.C., we pay our basic medical premiums whereas members from other divisions do not. The Lower Mainland already has a difficult time filling vacancies, but the added costs associated with changes to our medical benefits have made it worse.

This is of course not the sole reason that it is hard to staff vacant spots in the LMD, but it definitely contributes: prescription changes, reduced benefits, health services inappropriately getting involved in members' treatments, and the alarming and concerning fact of the recent privacy breaches conducted by senior RCMP officers. Unfortunately, all too often, members do suffer long-term injuries. How will workers' compensation affect this? Will a transfer to B.C. be halted because a member is deemed ineligible by the WCB or vice versa? Simply lumping the RCMP under existing mechanisms does not work.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada decision, I have had mixed emotions. While collective bargaining is one of those things that I have fought 18 years for, Bill C-7 leaves a lot to be desired. In its current state, it does little to provide true collective bargaining, which is protected under section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights.

While I am thankful for this opportunity to share my concerns about Bill C-7, without significant changes we will continue to see labour unrest and more court challenges, and the RCMP will continue to degrade in operational effectiveness as well as morale.

Thank you.

[Brendan McKenna, British Columbia, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, honourable members of the parliamentary committee.

My name is Brendan McKenna and I am the spokesman for the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association and the co-spokesman for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada. I've been involved in the association movement for 22 years. I am a founding member of both the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association in 1994 and the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada in 2010.

The B.C. MPPA is a non-profit provincial association. It's the provincial arm of MPPAC, the national association.

I spent 30 years serving with the RCMP, all in British Columbia, primarily on detachment—including the largest detachment in the country, the Surrey detachment—in both medium-sized and small detachments in the north. I provided relief on a three-person isolated post when the nearest assistance was more than a two-hour drive, so I bring a fairly broad perspective to bear on this.

I'll begin by speaking and sharing my concerns regarding the lack of core components found in Bill C-7. I'll focus primarily on two areas: the factors to be considered in interest arbitration, and restrictions on the scope of bargaining in the areas of staffing levels and equipment.

Last year, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the right to strike is constitutionally protected. RCMP members do not seek the right to strike. They recognize that the work they do is essential. However, what they do seek is that an alternative to striking, interest arbitration, be fair and independent.

As the Public Service Labour Relations Act and Bill C-7 are currently drafted, the interest arbitration process for RCMP members is anything but fair and independent. Rather, an arbitrator must give preponderant weight to two factors, including the government's stated fiscal policy. This skews the whole process in favour of the employer. This is the opposite of fair and independent, and contrary to the charter of rights of RCMP members.

The British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association calls upon the committee to amend Bill C-7 to allow an arbitrator to give equal weight to all factors and to not be required to consider the government's stated fiscal policy.

Another concern of the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association is in the area of restrictions on scope of bargaining in particular with respect to staffing levels and equipment. These two areas have a direct impact upon the occupational health and safety of front-line police officers. They have a direct impact on the quality of the work environment. Front-line officers who are overtasked, inadquately resourced, and underequipped cannot reasonably be expected to consistently deliver the high-quality service that the job demands and that the Canadian public expects.

We're being compared to civil servants under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The survey of RCMP employees conducted by the previous government resulted in over 9,000 RCMP members clarifying that they wanted separate legislation solely for the RCMP and thus Bill C-7.

We know that the Liberal government is committed to ensuring that the Supreme Court of Canada decision is complied with, but we are concerned that this bill misses the mark.

Bill C-7 as written does not fully meet the spirit and intent of the Supreme Court of Canada decision that provides the right of collective bargaining to the RCMP. I submit that the court's intention was to clarify that RCMP members should be accorded the same rights and privileges as all other Canadians and Canadian police colleagues in the various municipal, provincial, and federal agencies.

The restrictions contained in Bill C-7 would be akin to guaranteeing a person the right to vote and then limiting the placement of voting polls to locations that cannot be accessed. Essentially, vitiating that right.

Those restrictions within Bill C-7, as currently written and unless amended, preclude RCMP front-line membership from having effective and meaningful input into two areas critical to occupational health and safety. This is because Bill C-7 misses many of the key fundamental elements found in collective bargaining in other agencies that enshrine organized labour in Canada.

There are several police associations around the country that have collective agreement provisions regarding minimum staffing levels, including the Toronto Police Association, Sudbury, Windsor, and the Durham Regional Police Association, just to name a few.

Anecdotally, I can provide my own experience in front-line operations. Our detachments are generally under-resourced. There's a variety of reasons for this. I believe the primary reason is that those individuals on the pointy end of the stick have no input. Contracts are negotiated between the federal government and either provinces or municipalities. Fiscal considerations appear to be the prime motivator

Policing is expensive. For many municipalities, it is the single biggest budget item, so it's understandable that they would want to control costs to the extent possible. However, this has resulted in chronic understaffing at detachments across the country, essentially leaving it up to the members on the ground to carry the burden.

In 2009, I was recruited to work at our provincial headquarters in British Columbia. The position was leading the unit, which focused on police resourcing at detachments around the province. One of the goals was to review each detachment in the province every five years to ensure that they were adequately resourced for front-line service delivery. Prior to my arrival, the unit had just completed a study which identified that one Vancouver Island detachment was so under-resourced that it required 26 additional front-line members to address the gap.

This client services unit was supposed to include two NCOs to analyze data and prepare and present the findings, and five public servants to mine and gather the data from computer-based record systems. Only one of the five public servants was hired. The other positions were blocked and the funding reallocated to another project. It was a notable irony that the unit responsible to ensure detachments were adequately resourced was itself so under-resourced that it could not meet its own mandate. Had there been a collective agreement in place, with provisions to ensure minimum staffing levels, it is unlikely that this situation would have been allowed to occur.

Thank you. That concludes my remarks. I'll turn it over to Pat Mehain in British Columbia.

Presence in Gallery

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on an important point of order seeking unanimous consent of the House, and I will tell the House why. It is to confirm our collective intention that no RCMP member be prevented from communicating with his or her member of Parliament on Bill C-7, and that no discipline be enforced upon a member who has responded to the call of the public safety committee to appear before it as a witness.

I am sure it is the intention of all of us to make sure that members affected by laws in front of this place have the right to communicate in a responsible way with their elected representatives and to respond to give testimony before the committee considering that bill.

Why is unanimous consent required? It is because a letter was shared today that would suggest that some members could not appear and that some members may be disciplined for giving testimony this morning at committee.

I would ask for unanimous consent so that, as a collective, we can exercise our right to call witnesses on important matters affecting this country.

[Ron Lewis]

It's kind of ironic. I joined in 1969, so I went for five years without any representation at all. We had more power as elected representatives because we could negotiate everything, and with a good commissioner—it always depends on a good commissioner—we got a lot of good deals.

If Bill C-7 goes through, and they deal only with pay and benefits, we all know that our pay, and public service unions—

[Mark Gaillard]

The RCMP Superannuation Act is more than just the pension plan. It is also, under part two, the methodology by which the RCMP provides, through the Pension Act, compensation for the permanently disabled due to a workplace injury. It's not just about the pensioners. Some of the serving members' concerns are encoded in the RCMP Superannuation Act. There is an exclusion about anything that is in the RCMP Superannuation Act being non-negotiable in terms of collective bargaining. That's a specific section of Bill C-7, in part 2.1 of the new act, which will set the boundaries for collective bargaining. If you set something into the RCMP Superannuation Act, such as the disability penson system provided to members of the force, then you immunize that from collective bargaining.

A neat way to make things non-negotiable is to make them in legislation. That would be my comment.

[Mark Gaillard]

I think what I drew from their appearance and from some of the answers that came from the table go to what we have been saying. We're not necessarily against reforms or improvements or enhancements to disability pension, benefits, etc. We don't have a real position on that because we have not been consulted. We hadn't even been notified or advised that this was coming. We are caught on the hotfoot in being able to on the fly try to analyze, consider, look at various models to compare to analyses, etc. We've had no occasion or opportunity to do that. This would happen ordinarily had it not been for the fact that Bill C-7 must be approved and in place in order to meet the deadline of May 17, 2016, as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada—

[Ron Lewis]

When we came here today, we were just going to speak on behalf of the veterans and on what the future looks like for them if Bill C-7 was approved. On the exclusion of appointments, I don't know if it's proper for us, it's probably a question better suited for—

[Ron Lewis, Association Chief Advocate, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Ron Lewis. I'm the chief advocate for the RCMP Veterans' Association. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to speak on behalf of approximately 17,000 veterans and for future veterans of the RCMP who as a result of a medical discharge will become a veteran the next day. This is all in regard to Bill C-7.

I served over 35 years with the RCMP. During the last 10 years of my service, I was an elected, full-time staff relations representative, the same as Peter and Brian, who appeared just before us. Part of my responsibilities during that time was on a medical review committee for members on sick leave due to illness and injury as a result of their service. Prior to that time, I was a staff member of the Canadian Police College, responsible for delivering labour relations training to all police services of Canada except the RCMP, because we were exempted.

I'm also the co-chair of the RCMP Veterans Women's Council, dealing with their harassment situation that's ongoing. Operationally, I've worked in every province and territory in Canada except for Nunavut and overseas. I'm the author of This Is Not the RCMP I Joined: the RCMP Pension and Insurance Scandal.

Clauses 40 and 42 of Bill C-7 are not related to the Supreme Court's decision and direction. I can only speculate why these extraneous provisions have been included. However, I can clearly state that if these clauses are not removed, there will be a dramatic and detrimental effect upon occupational, health care, and disability benefits for RCMP members, reservists, and veterans. It is ironic that prior to the legislative process to provide a collective bargaining framework for RCMP members and reservists, as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal government, through the RCMP commissioner, disbanded the elected staff relations representative members, leaving the serving members and reservists without a voice to speak to this enabling legislation.

I have to applaud Brian and Peter. Peter may lose his job tomorrow as a result of what he did on the direction of the commissioner. Brian took a leave of absence without pay. He's taking no pay because he thinks this is very important.

Consultation was undertaken directly with the RCMP members prior to crafting Bill C-7. However, changing occupational, health care, and disability benefits were not included in that process. There was no consultation whatsoever on that process. The inclusion of clauses 40 and 42 appears to be a pre-emptive strike on the new collective bargaining process for RCMP members and reservists to limit and alter existing benefits. This has all the appearances of an unfair labour practice. What kind of message does this send to the employees for future negotiations?

Clause 40 of Bill C-7 is clear. RCMP members and reservists will fall under the provisions of the government employees care act, usually referred to as GECA. The occupational, health care, and disability benefits will be transferred to provincial workmen's compensation boards. The benefits vary greatly from province to province. I can address this matter in more detail through your questions. There is a document available, at 340 pages, that just describes the differences between each province.

Clause 42 of Bill C-7 repeals subsection 34(1) of the RCMP Superannuation Act, our pension plan. This would dilute or negate disability benefits and services under the Pension Act that had been available to members and veterans since at least 1948.

Clauses 40 and 42 should be removed from Bill C-7. It's premature, it's unstudied, and it should be allowed to go before a collective bargaining process to get the best deal for the members and reservists of the RCMP.

I'd be honoured to answer questions, particularly related to the adverse effects these health care and disability provisions will have on future RCMP veterans.

Thank you.

[Mark Gaillard, Executive Officer and Secretary, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

I am Mark Gaillard. I am the executive officer and the national secretary, and the only full-time employee of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans’ Association.

It is an honour for me to appear before you on behalf of the board of directors and the many thousands of former members and employees of the force, as well as their families, as this association has been doing since 1886. Now retired, I served for a total of 40 years as a regular member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a foreign service officer in the public service, and as a commissioned officer in the Canadian Armed Forces, regular force and reserve. I am also academically trained as a legislative drafter, having graduated with a master of laws degree in legislative drafting through a joint program of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law and the Department of Justice. So, I love to talk about legislation.

The position of the RCMP Veterans’ Association is unequivocal: the complete removal of clauses 40 and 42 of Bill C-7. The purpose of Bill C-7 is to set up the legislative framework to provide for a collective bargaining regime for members of the RCMP and reservists as directed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Clauses 40 and 42 of Bill C-7 have nothing to do with this purpose. Although not formally defined as such in legislation, former members of the RCMP are veterans. The service and duties performed by members of the RCMP are not like those performed by other federal public sector employees. In terms of the risk to life and to health, both physical and mental, experienced in protecting Canadians 24/7 in every province and territory and abroad, members of the RCMP are in this respect more like members of the regular force of the Canadian Armed Forces than employees of the federal government. It is for this very reason that both members of the RCMP and the regular force of the Canadian Armed Forces have been excluded from the Government Employees Compensation Act, the GECA. By amending that act, clause 40 of Bill C-7 ends that exclusion of RCMP members from GECA.

Clause 42 of Bill C-7, on the other hand, repeals a subsection of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. The RCMP Superannuation Act was first enacted in 1959. The specific subsection Bill C-7 repeals was put in the RCMP Superannuation Act in 1998, in Bill C-12. Because we are the veterans of the RCMP who contributed to the RCMP pension plan over the course of our careers and receive retirement benefits for ourselves and survivor benefits for our spouses and dependants, it is easy to understand why we are very interested in any proposed changes to the RCMP Superannuation Act. RCMP veterans and serving members of the force who contribute to the pension plan today have not been notified, consulted, or advised about the proposed change to the RCMP Superannuation Act contained in Bill C-7. We have had no opportunity whatsoever to analyze, discuss, and provide our considered views on how this proposed change to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act will impact former and retired members of the force, the veterans, today and in the future. These changes are being made and are being rushed into law without even the pretext of consultation with stakeholders.

This, I submit, is egregious. It flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. As part of a different style of leadership, that mandate letter directed the minister to engage in constructive dialogue with stakeholders, including the not-for-profit and charitable sectors. The RCMP Veterans’ Association is a not-for-profit corporation, first registered as such in 1924.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are deeply disappointed that we must report to you that no such constructive dialogue has taken place regarding clauses 40 and 42 of Bill C-7. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans’ Association hopes that this committee will see fit to remove these clauses from Bill C-7.

Thank you.

[Staff Sergeant Roy Hill, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer, The Mounted Police Members' Legal Fund]

Good day, honourable members. Thank you for the opportunity to present. I'll try to do this as quickly as I can.

My name is Roy Hill, and I live in St. John's, Newfoundland. You probably gathered that from the accent already.

My service was in several provinces, including Newfoundland and Labrador. I've had over 40 years' experience as a member of the RCMP, and I'm retired.

I had the privilege of serving the RCMP members as their elected labour relations representative for over 13 years in Newfoundland and Labrador. Prior to that I had an additional 13 years as a supplementary representative. Having received several awards during my service, I am most proud of the order of merit of the police forces, MOM, honouring my leadership, exceptional service, and distinctive merit, and also recognizing my contribution to policing, community development, and my commitment to the country of Canada.

Why am I here today? I'm here to speak on behalf of RCMP members, and to ensure they are treated fairly and equitably on any matter that affects their welfare or dignity. Specifically I'm here to represent the 16,500 RCMP members who made a voluntary decision to join and pay dues to The Mounted Police Members' Legal Fund, which since 1998 has been an important component of the RCMP's labour relations system.

I want to describe the extremely concerning and deteriorating situation RCMP members currently face in respect of their basic working conditions. I want to describe the actions that RCMP management is currently taking that are having a significant and detrimental impact on RCMP members, and particularly on their current ability to access any form of collective representation regarding workplace issues; and also the RCMP's serious concerns with the substance of Bill C-7. RCMP members are concerned with the significant restrictions that Bill C-7 will impose on negotiations between RCMP management and the bargaining agent for RCMP members, and the fact that Bill C-7 would place RCMP members under the jurisdiction of the various provincial workers' compensation authorities in respect of occupational health matters.

With the legal fund, and recognizing the need to have the ability to research and challenge issues on behalf of the RCMP members, in 1997 the corporation was struck, separate and apart from the RCMP. The legal fund is totally independent from the RCMP. It is a non-profit corporation that promotes the improvement of members' conditions of employment or work. If the legal fund were not currently in existence, and available to its members, then those members who are facing challenges and request legal assistance to meet those challenges would face financial ruin and possibly the destruction of their character and career.

First, the commissioner has unilaterally cut off the process of automatic payroll deductions for membership dues that fund the work of the legal fund on behalf of the members. This notification came approximately three hours before RCMP management sent out a bulletin to all RCMP members advising them of this significant change. This was done without any discussion or consultation.

Second, the commissioner has announced a plan to replace the current SRR system with a much diminished member workplace service adviser. Under this program, RCMP members will not have any access to a form of collective representation in respect of workplace matters or other issues that may affect their dignity or welfare. Furthermore it will do so until a bargaining agent is certified under the legislative framework.

Why is this serious? It's serious because RCMP members say this is serious business. In the short term, the end of voluntary pay deductions threatens the very existence of this legal fund, and it's been on the go since 1998. RCMP management know that the legal fund depends exclusively on this payroll deduction to fund its work on behalf of RCMP members, and that arbitrarily stopping the deductions will have a dramatic adverse effect on the legal fund and its ability to assist members on their issues. In fact the end of payroll deductions could result in the end of the legal fund. By the way, the staff relations representative you heard from here today, as of February 5, 2016, and until May 16, 2016—that's their elimination date, I call it—cannot advocate on behalf of any member on any issue, and they can not communicate with the media, the Minister of Public Safety, Parliament, the Senate, or the general public concerning any matter related to the RCMP, unless they get express permission from the commissioner.

To summarize, rather than improving RCMP members' ability to exercise their freedom of association, RCMP management's current course of action is to totally eliminating collective representation in the RCMP.

On this basis, the legal fund requests that this committee consider and ensure that the long-standing and voluntary system of automatic payroll deductions for legal fund members' dues be continued. In other words, Commissioner, get it back on track.

This goes to the heart of the matter. We would submit that RCMP's management and this government know how vulnerable the RCMP members are at this time. I've received written correspondence from our serving members of the RCMP saying, would you please pass on to this committee how vulnerable we are right now.

I just related to you some of the actions of RCMP management in stifling any form of representation of members.

Bill C-7 is intended to improve the working conditions of RCMP members as per the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Instead, we have RCMP members across Canada enraged over the contents of this bill. Why are they angry?

One, they're angry because the legislation imposes restrictions on what would be the subject of negotiations in a new labour relations scheme and, two, it would place RCMP members under the jurisdiction of the provincial workers' compensation boards.

Some of the issues that cannot be negotiated in Bill C-7 include staffing levels and postings. Are they large and serious issues? You bet they are. Who is in complete control of these issues? Management. Was there any input from the members of the RCMP in respect of the development of Bill C-7? No.

The only messages that the government hears are those of the commissioner and his senior management team, and I'd describe them as having powerful and unbridled positions. It is not from the grassroots, the women and men who are boots on the ground, 24/7, across Canada, who are serving in locations that no other agency would dare set up an office in unless an RCMP member is present. That's the reality.

Understaffing of detachments and offices is the norm, including the smaller detachments. Officer safety...and burnout are ever taking place, yet RCMP members continue to put themselves in harm's way to protect citizens.

The staffing levels are very much relevant and important, but they can't be negotiated. This makes no sense. RCMP members have to agree to serve anywhere in Canada if they want to enlist in Canada's national police force. This means that throughout one's career you could serve in several provinces and in various locations, but the details of this cannot be negotiated.

In other words, some of the most important working terms and conditions that apply to RCMP members cannot be negotiated under Bill C-7. This is simply unfair and we would submit is at odds with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.

Health care coverage has been one of the pillars over the decades that attracted people to join the RCMP. It doesn't take long after your enlistment to appreciate that no matter the posting, the health services would be made available with none of the wrangling associated with dealing with provincial compensation boards. The radio talk shows, certainly in my neck of the woods, are flooded every week with calls from irate citizens who are frustrated with provincial compensation boards, the bureaucracy, and the constant struggle to be heard and dealt with fairly, including on their financial losses.

I would be doing a disservice if I didn't bring to your attention, with regard to service in the RCMP and the postings, those who are also a part of the package, as I refer to it. It's just not RCMP members being impacted; we're talking about spouses, partners, families, who are very much an integral part of these postings and where they serve. I know this because I've been there and I know what it is today.

In Newfoundland and Labrador you go across the Trans-Canada and I could tell you the places before you even visit where you've got no cellphone coverage and no radio coverage still in 2016, yet people are putting themselves in harm's way.

The children of these members are impacted largely, big-time. Personally, my three children were in three different schools in one school year. They were. To this day my three adult daughters often negatively refer to this very traumatic experience, which to them is unforgivable. Was it all that long ago? No. Is it still going on today? Yes.

I've read some emails from spouses of members and some of them have written to their members of Parliament. I commend them for doing that. One spouse went on to say the RCMP is a national police force and is unique from all others, and I think that's right on the mark. They deserve to have the benefits under the federal medicare coverage because they are told they will serve anywhere in Canada.

They deserve to be treated fairly at the bargaining table. They deserve to be taken care of when injured in the line of duty, protecting, me, my family, and you and your family, as well as the security of the nation.

Remember, a police officer is a peacetime soldier always at war. The members of the RCMP deserve your support and have earned what benefits that have been promised to them.

Mr. Chair, I hope I'm within time.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I'll be very quick.

Currently this committee, when it's not doing Bill C-7, is involved in an in-depth study on PTSD and its impact on the RCMP, looking at how to better serve your members. How will this bill impact the ability to treat members suffering from PTSD or operational stress injuries in general? Will it have a positive impact on the ability to treat them quickly or a negative impact?

[Peter Merrifield]

Here's one of the key components to understand, if I may speak, Rae.

The thing with exclusions is this. By default, they're saying that concerning our working conditions or our unsafe working environment we can make a complaint under the Canada Labour Code. That's after the fact; that's after our three members in Moncton were murdered and there were Canada Labour Code charges. That's after four members were murdered in Mayerthorpe and there were reviews by the provincial level and the federal level.

The Canada Labour Code is after the fact: it's after I'm injured, it's after I'm killed. What I want is a system that permits me to be proactive. I want engagement with my management; I want guarantees in my collective agreement. I want to prevent death and injury; I don't want to respond to it as a learning lesson. That is what is unacceptable in the exclusions to working conditions in Bill C-7.

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

I'd like to follow up on that, because that is an area in which I feel the government has struck the right balance.

Mr. Merrifield, you talked about the RCMP and their important role as a paramilitary organization. I think there are certainly problems.... If discipline, operational matters, postings—all of the unique nature of our federal police service, which I'm very proud of—should not be part of collective bargaining, essentially you don't have a chain of command, and you can't be the unique force that you are.

Not that I'm trying to help these guys too much, but Bill C-7 tries to get the balance right. That's my point of view. I don't want to see a unionized military. I don't think you would have thought it would work well when you were in rotary-wing.

I'm going to devote what little time I have to what Mr. Sauvé focused on very well, which is the potential lack of a high standard with clauses 40 and 42.

While I was veterans affairs minister, as someone in the crowd knows here today, I made sure that the veterans association was part of my direct stakeholder advisory group, and I was inclined to the solution you discussed in terms of using the expertise at VAC.

A key concern is whether you have been able to identify provinces in which the standards for workers compensation are not at levels that you feel are sufficient for the RCMP.

[The Honourable Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Erin O'Toole]

Thank you all for appearing and certainly for your service.

The Conservative Party has tried to approach Bill C-7in a way that respects the timelines involved and respects the unique nature of the RCMP, so, unlike Mr. Mendicino, who just talked about harassment, we're focused on clauses 40 and 42. You may have followed our questions on that, and that's where our concern lies.

I was struck though, Mr. Banwarie, that you suggested you are surprised that this is like the PSLRA, but that was what the court case was about. The charter right was that the staff relations program did not provide the charter right, which is kind of why we're here.

A couple of you mentioned that you were part of the staff relations program, the insufficiency of which led to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. What specifically with that structure was the inherent weakness, from your point of view, for those who were involved directly in those roles?

[Peter Merrifield]

What they've done with respect to that is the residual management right, which is recognized in labour law. With the residual management right within collective bargaining, there are certain things we could not encroach on, but what is supported within other case law decisions is the speaking to the direct officer safety working conditions so, while they did recede a bit on the 1975-76 decisions with the arbitrators and the court of appeals with regard to two-member cars, when it came to the significant components of officer safety, most of those elements have been upheld and allowed to continue to be in collective bargaining agreements. There is language to support that, which is missing in Bill C-7, even language about collaborative committees. There is not one word in Bill C-7 for a collaborative committee outside of the Canada Labour Code mandatory committee.

[Peter Merrifield]

When it comes to exclusions, I think the models to cite.... I listened to the testimony Tuesday, and comments from both Deputy Commissioner Dubeau, and I believe Minister Goodale talked about Bill C-7 being in alignment with all of the other police associations in the country, but we beg to differ. Two of the largest provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, don't list exclusions. So, yes, in their collective bargainings, within British Columbia the fire services and police act, have no exclusions, absolutely none. Within Ontario, it's listed within section 119(3) of the Police Services Act, where so long as it falls in compliance with section 126, which describes the duties of a police officer, components may be included in collective bargaining.

[Peter Merrifield, Director, Mounted Police Association of Ontario]

As a past president of the Mounted Police Association of Ontario, and a current director, I was one of the original people involved in the application before the courts that began in 2004 and 2005, in the preparatory stages, to be filed in 2006. That application by the Mounted Police Association of Ontario, supported by the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association, has led this committee to this room. For 13 years, I have been committed to a piece of legislation whose spirit and intent was to be driven by officer safety and working conditions. This was never an application about pay, benefits, and issues like that.

I would like to tell you briefly about myself so you can understand what, who, and how is addressing you here today.

I am currently a sergeant in the RCMP. For the last three years I have been a member of the internal staff relations program. I have been a member of the Mounted Police Association in good standing for 13 years. I've sat on the board of directors of the Canadian Police Association, and I've been president of the MPAO. I am one of the co-founders and executive chairs of the new National Police Federation, which is another group seeking national certification to represent members of the RCMP. I am also a military veteran, and I proudly served in the Canadian Armed Forces in rotary-wing operations, Mr. O'Toole, just so we are clear. I've stood for Parliament and was the first serving member of the RCMP to run in a general federal election, in 2004. Because I am not on that side of the table, I think you know the outcome.

As a co-chair of the national officer safety committee within the RCMP, as well as a member of the national policy health and safety committee, I have been responsible for representing members of the RCMP on health and safety issues in accordance with the Canada Labour Code and in conjunction with RCMP management. Having had a seat at the table, I have a very good view of what's going on inside.

Because the spirit and the intent of this legislation, when we brought it forward as a legal challenge, were to improve the working conditions of the members of the RCMP, I am very concerned over the exclusions and the very limited scope of collective bargaining that have been included in Bill C-7. Originally, we would have liked to see a Royal Canadian Mounted Police labour relations act. That didn't seem to come to fruition. There seem to be remnants, from our management and whoever was involved in drafting the legislation, that seem to mirror the former Bill C-43. We have to work with what we are given, and as an appellant before the courts I appreciate the very strict timeline that this committee has been given to try to generate this.

As a result of that, and my having been one of the people who compiled this, there really was an overwhelming desire to improve officer safety and working conditions. Our application sought rights and the ability to influence and determine our working conditions. Once it was submitted, we fought for nine years before the courts, at every level: Ontario Superior Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Canada. We sought to right a wrong, which is often what police officers do. Our seeking to right that wrong was to seek the fundamental rights that every other Canadian had, that every other police officer in the country had, and that was to have a say in our working conditions, to be entitled to legally supported collective bargaining.

More than a year after the decision by the Supreme Court, it would appear that the legislation presented by way of Bill C-7 does not embrace the spirit and intent of the MPAO/BCMPPA application, nor of the SCC decision itself. The intention of the SCC included a key word, which I often do not hear repeated, and that is the word “meaningful”. It was to include choice and independence, to guarantee that we were able to participate in meaningful collective bargaining.

I am somewhat concerned that the input provided to the committee has relied heavily on the management perspective of the RCMP, because this bill, this legislation, is about empowering the members of the RCMP. Because of the information you've been given by management, I feel that—if I can use a euphemism here—somehow the foxes have installed a security system in the henhouse, if you will. I'd like you to consider what matters. When our officers are safe, the public is safe, and that is your responsibility as elected officials.

Now, I had very short notice to appear at the committee. Part of that was my fault. I have a written submission that I will be providing to the clerk through the weekend. It is important you realize that some things that were brought up at the meeting the other day.... I have put my position in the RCMP at risk speaking to you today, and I have brought the signed order of the commissioner of the RCMP with me, if you wish to see it.

That would be my timer, so I would stop at this point and answer any questions you like.

Mr. Sauvé.

[Leland Keane]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Absolutely.

I'll draw your attention to clause 40 of Bill C-7, the Government Employees Compensation Act. We would like that section struck. We have a situation that's dealt with internally by the RCMP management. Our members overwhelmingly do not want to be subject to provincial workers' compensation boards. Witness our recent survey, which we can provide to you.

We also have concerns regarding the clarity of the terms regarding affiliation under the PSLRA. It's too vague. There are some charter issues there with the association under the charter. “Affiliation” is not defined and can be used once we have certified, even against us in that.

What we seek in Bill C-7 is that the term “affiliated” be more specifically defined in order to give better guidance to the employee association, which would be allowed to certify.

I think that pretty much covers what we have. I draw your attention to our brief, and we certainly do welcome questions regarding any of those issues in our brief.

[Leland Keane, Board Member, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to speak.

My name is Leland Keane. I'm a director of the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, also known as MPPAC.

I've been involved in the pursuit of collective bargaining for members of the RCMP since 1995. I would like to draw your attention to page 4 regarding discipline in part of our brief.

We have concerns with Bill C-7 about the adequacy and independence of the current process regarding discipline. The commissioner has the authority for appointing conduct authorities and conduct boards, but the appeals from these bodies are decided by the commissioner. The procedure lacks any independence from the RCMP commissioner.

In comparison, Ontario, for instance, has the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which is much more independent. The first level of decision there on most misconduct issues is decided by the chief of police. Under section 87 of the Ontario Police Services Act, police officers or complainants can appeal that decision with the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which is appointed by that lieutenant-governor. Further appeals would go through divisional court under section 88.

MPPAC calls upon the government to amend the current RCMP procedures for code of conduct and discipline matters to ensure a greater level of independence from the RCMP commissioner. We would like to see some civilian oversight.

On this fair dispute resolution process, RCMP members are precluded from striking. It's also in MPPAC's constitution. We don't want or seek the right to strike. Binding arbitration is vital to replace that process to make it fair and independent, which replaces our constitutional right to strike.

We have serious concerns about fairness and constitutionality of this dispute resolution in place. We understand the necessity for attracting and retaining personnel and Canada's fiscal circumstances, and the government's position is skewed in favour of that position.

In regard to arbitration, we want an arbitrator to independently consider all relevant factors and weigh those. Factors such as classification of employees would be something that we would be interested in having in the collective agreement. RCMP members are not civil servants, and it's not relevant to compare us to other civil servants.

MPPAC would propose such phrases “as between occupations in the public service” be deleted from the arbitrational factors in the PSLRA. We would like to see, on page 5, a paragraph (b):

the necessity of offering compensation and other terms and conditions of employment in the public service that are comparable to those of other employees in similar occupations in the private and public sectors, including any geographic, industrial or other variations that the arbitration board considers relevant;

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant), Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm calling the 10th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to order.

As you know, we are continuing our study, on reference from the House of Commons by order of reference on Thursday, March 24, to study Bill C-7 a bill that all Canadians are concerned about, of course, but there are certain groups more implicated in it than others. We are delighted to have with us representatives from the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, the National Police Federation, and the Mounted Police Association of Ontario.

We're going to begin today with a 10-minute presentation from the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada. It will be followed by a joint presentation from the National Police Federation and the Mounted Police Professional Association of Ontario for 10 minutes as well.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ministers, and your departmental officials for appearing here today, and particularly Minister Goodale for your reflections on Constable Beckett. I know that the thoughts of everyone in Parliament and in Canada are with her husband and children and their colleagues.

As you are right to say on Bill C-7, we certainly followed the Mounted Police Association case to the Supreme Court, and it's our intention to try to work with the government on Bill C-7. You'll note that we've said two things that we want to see, as critical to this bill and the discussion around it.

One is the right for front-line members of the RCMP to vote by secret ballot on their own union, which your officials have said to us in briefings is the normal course for public sector unionization. We expect to see that, despite Bill C-4.

The other critical piece, and I mentioned this in my speech in the House, is the wellness of RCMP members, particularly with respect to mental health and balancing off their needs. As you know, I was veterans minister for a time. Veterans Affairs Canada administered benefits for RCMP veterans post-release.

I think now is an appropriate time for us to have a complete discussion whenever benefit regimes are being changed, because we learned that in the move to the new Veterans Charter—and both the Liberals and the Conservative governments more or less owned that change—there wasn't enough discussion and understanding of the changes, and that led to a lot of stress.

My two questions will focus specifically on clauses 40 and 42 and some changes. Bill C-7 is now including the RCMP in the Government Employees Compensation Act rather than in the old occupational health regime of the RCMP.

Minister Goodale, you said that this is because it's lacking features such as appeal mechanisms and structural things like that. But for a federal police force, it looks as though this is the outsourcing of a single federal force to ten different provincial standards across the country, through workers' compensation.

Can you explain to us how that will ensure a high standard for members of our federal police force?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you to all members of the committee, and thank you, Minister Goodale.

I'm pleased to be here with you today and to have the opportunity to discuss with you Bill C-7, which would amend, of course, the Public Service Labour Relations Act to provide for a labour relations regime for members of the RCMP and reservists.

It is an important piece of legislation designed to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in collective bargaining.

I am delighted, as always, to be joined by my colleague Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety, and his officials. Joining me at the table from Treasury Board Secretariat is Manon Brassard, assistant deputy minister, compensation and labour relations, and Dennis Duggan from labour relations.

After my remarks, Minister Goodale and I look forward to your questions and a productive discussion on this bill.

As you know, we inherited a situation from the previous government that required us to move quickly to address the Supreme Court's decision, which was made public on January 16, 2015. In that decision, the court said that the current labour relations regime for the RCMP was unconstitutional because it interfered with RCMP members' freedom of association.

There are two key elements of the existing regime governing RCMP relations. First, RCMP members are currently excluded from the application of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The result of this exclusion is that they are not allowed to bargain collectively and have no recourse to arbitration as part of that.

Second, the existing regime imposes on members a specific form of employee representation called the staff relations representative program. The aim of the program is that at each level of hierarchy, representatives and management consult on human resources initiatives and policies, with the understanding that the final word always rests with management. This program currently is the only form of employee representation recognized by the RCMP management.

Bill C-7 would respond directly to the Supreme Court decision by rectifying the elements of the RCMP labour regime that the court found unconstitutional. The bill would remove the exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of employee in the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

RCMP members and reservists would have the freedom to choose whether they wish to be represented by an employee organization and, if so, which organization. And this organization must be independent of the influence of RCMP management.

As a result of this bill, the constitutional freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining would be enshrined in a labour relations statute.

Under the previous government, there were consultations with RCMP regular members in the summer of 2015—in fact, much of that consultation would have been during the election, too—and an online survey and town hall sessions, so that their views could be incorporated and taken into account in developing this bill. More than 9,000 regular members completed the survey, and more than 650 people participated in the town hall sessions.

Most regular members who participated in the online consultations said they supported the idea of a unionized RCMP. They also showed a strong preference for a labour relations regime that would use binding arbitration without the right to strike as the mechanism for resolving impasses in bargaining. In addition to that, regular members showed clear support for the option of representation by a single national employee organization whose primary mandate would be the representation of RCMP members.

The bill reflects these preferences. First, it requires that there would be a single national bargaining unit composed solely of RCMP members and reservists. Second, it requires that the bargaining agent have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP officers. The bill also establishes independent binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process for bargaining impasses, with no right to strike.

I'd like to take this opportunity to review a few other key features of the bill.

Similar to existing provisions in the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the bill proposes to exclude from representation RCMP officers from inspector to commissioner level, as well as other managerial and confidential positions. The Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will be designated as the administrative tribunal for matters related to RCMP member and reservist collective bargaining, as well as for grievances related to a collective agreement. In making recommendations for employment to that board, the chairperson must take into account the need to have at least two members with knowledge of police organizations.

Mr. Chair, during the second reading a number of members spoke about the methods by which unions can be certified and about whether to allow for a choice between a vote and a card check, for example. The bill we're studying today is entirely and intentionally silent on this issue. That's because we want to ensure a consistent approach for all employee associations. The government has introduced a separate piece of legislation, Bill C-4, to address this issue and restore a fair and balanced federal labour policy. It is being considered by the committee known as HUMA. It's our belief that discussions on union certification methods are better suited to and within the scope of the consideration of Bill C-4.

Mr. Chair, we believe this is a historic opportunity to give RCMP members and reservists their independence and freedom of choice in labour relations matters, while recognizing the unique operational reality of policing.

We value your committee's role in the legislative process. We believe that the role of Parliament and parliamentary committees is vitally important, and we're looking forward to the discussion and to your considered examination of this important piece of legislation.

Thank you.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

It's a great pleasure to be here with my colleague, the Honourable Scott Brison, President of the Treasury Board, to aid in your study of Bill C-7.

I am joined today by Daniel Dubeau, who is deputy commissioner of the RCMP and chief of the human resources department; Craig MacMillan, the professional responsibility officer with the RCMP; and Kathy Thompson, who is assistant deputy minister, community safety and countering crime branch within Public Safety Canada.

Mr. Chair, we gather for this meeting on the day that the RCMP is laying to rest the late Constable Sarah Beckett, who tragically lost her life in the line of duty a week ago today near Victoria, British Columbia.

I know I speak for all committee members and all Canadians when I express our sincere condolences to Constable Beckett's family, her friends, and RCMP colleagues. Thousands will gather in her honour this afternoon, exemplifying Canada's love and respect for her and for her chosen career as a member of the RCMP. We honour her memory.

Specifically on this legislation, Bill C-7, it is encouraging to see a pretty good deal of cross-party support for this bill, at least judging by some of the debate on second reading. On the whole, I think the bill has been acknowledged as a fair and reasonable attempt to respond to the instructions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

At the same time, any legislative change of this scope is subject to questions and concerns, and we have of course heard these as well. We hope that those questions and concerns can be addressed during the committee's study of Bill C-7. As you know, the Prime Minister has been very clear on the important role of parliamentary committees. He has directed the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to strengthen committee work and ensure that the committees more effectively fulfill their function of scrutinizing legislation. That is the purpose of your hearings today with respect to Bill C-7.

For my part at this meeting, I will briefly discuss the unique role of the RCMP as our national police force, as well as try to provide some background on how this legislation came about and why we need to move ahead on the changes that are before the committee.

Mr. Brison will then provide you with a more detailed look at the nuts and bolts of the bill and the implications of the proposed changes for the current RCMP labour relations regime.

Mr. Chair, as we know, the RCMP plays a policing role that isn't found anywhere else in the world. It is truly unique. That role is international, national, provincial, territorial, municipal. It not only provides federal policing services to all Canadians; it also provides police services under contract to three territories, eight provinces, 150 municipalities, and more than 600 indigenous communities across Canada.

Its mandate is vast. RCMP members prevent and investigate crimes—from petty theft to cyberespionage to terrorist activities, and everything in between. They protect the safety of state officials and visiting dignitaries.

They also work abroad as part of peacekeeping operations and with other law enforcement agencies in Canada and around the world.

That just scratches the surface of what the RCMP is all about. RCMP members are dedicated to their work and to serving Canadians. They must perform their jobs while often facing immense challenges and very real personal dangers. That becomes tragically apparent when we hear the sad news, as we did last week, of that young constable killed in the line of duty in British Columbia. It is important for all of us to support the work of RCMP members and important that we take all proper steps to ensure that they can in fact exercise their charter-protected freedoms, including the freedom of association.

That brings us to the legislation that is before this committee now. As members know, this proposed legislation is the Government of Canada's response to a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that was rendered in January of 2015. In that ruling, the court held that key elements of the labour relations framework in existence at that time for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police infringed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because those elements substantially interfered with members' rights to freedom of association.

In other words, within reasonable limits, RCMP members, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, are indeed entitled to unionization.

The ruling has broad implications for the government and for the RCMP, and it requires a restructuring of the existing framework that has applied to the force for more than 40 years.

Given the implications of this decision, which as I said was rendered in January of 2015, the court suspended its declaration of invalidity for 12 months. There was a deadline set for new legislation by January of 2016. No visible steps were taken to get things rolling in that regard before Parliament adjourned in June of 2015. Then, of course, as we know, a very long election campaign intervened. During the summer, after that long campaign had begun, government officials undertook some important basic consultation with both RCMP members and with the jurisdictions across the country that constitute the contract partners for the RCMP to get a sense of how the government should respond to that outstanding Supreme Court decision.

After the government changed in November, we went back to court to get a little bit of extra time to make it possible to respond in an orderly fashion, and the court provided an extra four months. That takes us to May 17, which is the deadline for getting the new legislation in place. We have tried to move quickly and responsibly in this regard.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for your encouraging view of the work of the committee: that the committee would hopefully be in a position to give this legislation its consideration and report to the House in a timely manner.

Officials at Public Safety Canada, the RCMP, and the Treasury Board have worked very hard to develop a sound legislative proposal to put before you, one that responds not only to the court decision but that also takes into account the views and preferences that were gathered from RCMP regular members themselves during the consultation process that I referred to. We want a bill that reflects the unique role and the operational nature of the RCMP.

Importantly, this bill provides members with a constitutionally sound labour relations regime, one that allows members the freedom, if they so wish, to choose to be represented by an employee organization and to bargain collectively through that employee association to address their labour needs with the employer. This is the same freedom of choice that is enjoyed by all other police forces in Canada.

It is crucial that we respond in a timely manner to that Supreme Court decision in order to respect RCMP members' charter rights and to provide members with legislative certainty about their labour relations future. If we don't respond by May 17, on that date the existing Public Service Labour Relations Act will come into effect and apply to members of the RCMP, so it's important that we intervene before that date.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act in its current form does not fully accommodate the concerns and interests of RCMP members or their operational reality. That said, I can assure committee members that we are committed to proceeding with a complete and thorough study of Bill C-7. We welcome open discussion and healthy debate on the proposed elements of the bill, and we are eager to hear from experts and stakeholders who will appear before the committee to provide their input.

I would like to touch on one important element of the bill, which has to do with the question of occupational injuries. I know this has been of interest to some members of the committee.

By way of history and background, on April 1, 2013, at the request of provincial contracting partners the previous government moved the RCMP members' non-occupational health care needs to provincial and territorial health care systems, but for reasons of the day, occupational-related injuries remained with the RCMP management to adjudicate and handle. A temporary program internal to the RCMP was set up to administer those occupational claims.

That temporary program lacks important features, such as a robust, independent adjudication methodology and an appeal structure. The employer should not be the final arbiter of whether the injury of one of its workers occurred on the job. An arm's-length arbiter, such as provincial workers' compensation boards are, can better provide professional, independent adjudication on any such claims, along with an established appeal procedure. The provincial boards also have experience with police-related injuries, as most municipal and provincial police currently access occupational claims coverage through provincial WCBs.

Finally, I would like to touch briefly on the issue of harassment, which I know members of the committee have been interested in as well, and mention three things.

Number one, I have taken under review the cases of four RCMP employees alleging harassment that are currently before the courts. You may recall that this issue became a matter of public discussion shortly after the election campaign. Both the Prime Minister and I undertook to review those cases, and that work is under way.

Number two, on February 4, 2016, I invited the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to undertake a comprehensive review of the RCMP's policies and procedures on workplace harassment and to evaluate the implementation of the recommendations that the complaints commission itself had made in 2013; in other words, what progress has been made from the last report of the complaints commission.

Number three, you will recall the incident that occurred this winter at the Police College. The commissioner has launched a full investigation of that matter. He has invited Paul Kennedy, the former complaints commission chair, to act as an independent monitor of the situation at the Police College, and we are awaiting the report from that review and from Mr. Kennedy.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I can assure you that other steps will be taken as well to deal with the difficult and troubling matter of harassment.

On that note, I will end my remarks and ask my honourable colleague, Mr. Brison, to provide a more detailed overview of Bill C-7.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)), Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to call this meeting back to order.

Welcome, Minister Goodale and Minister Brison. Thank you for joining us today as we're considering Bill C-7.

We're under a tight timeline. We hope to have given due consideration within a couple of weeks and to be able to report to Parliament with any proposed amendments hopefully by the end of next week. That is our goal.

You're here to explain to us Bill C-7. Thank you.

Mr. Goodale.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the right of police forces across Canada to bargain collectively, at their discretion, as the member noted. Bill C-7 would grant that right to RCMP members and would address the January 16, 2015, Supreme Court ruling on RCMP labour relations. If this bill does not pass before the extended deadline of May 17, the RCMP will be covered directly by the PSLRA.

Other changes are always possible in the future, but I want to know if the member is satisfied that we have met our Supreme Court obligation and will, in fact, be improving the situation.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise here today to discuss Bill C-7, which would give RCMP members, at long last, the right to collective bargaining. Many speakers before me have talked about how the RCMP is an important and even iconic police force, underlying how critical this discussion is.

As a member from British Columbia, I am grateful for the dedicated work of the RCMP in protecting citizens across most of our province, and indeed across the country. Over the past months, I have met with members from RCMP detachments across my riding to discuss local issues and this issue of collective bargaining.

I also recently attended a public information meeting organized by the RCMP in Oliver, B.C., to discuss public safety, and I was impressed by the respectful and meaningful discussions that community members had with local RCMP members. We need to retain and nurture that mutual respect between the community and the RCMP.

I heard the member for Yellowhead lament that the RCMP had slipped in its rankings across the country. We would all like to see that ranking improve. While I thank him for that service and respect his thoughts on collective bargaining, I think that Bill C-7 will be a step in the right direction for that new and better future for the RCMP.

I am pleased to support the bill at second reading, a bill that gives RCMP members the same rights that are enjoyed by all other police forces in Canada. As we have heard, the bill is the government response to a Supreme Court ruling that struck down laws that have prohibited RCMP members from bargaining collectively. Given the court- imposed deadline, the NDP will support the bill, but we are looking for some important amendments at committee.

The Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada advocates for workplace issues on behalf of its members. In a recent press release, that association stated that “this bill is flawed by removing vital matters from the bargaining table such as disciplinary measures and allocation of resources”.

It is critical that the new collective bargaining regime that RCMP members will work under will include more than the ability to negotiate pay and benefits. Workplace safety, staffing, harassment, and discipline issues are often more important for a properly functioning organization than pay alone. I am reminded of the decade-long dispute between the British Columbia government and the BC Teachers' Federation, which revolved primarily around issues of class size.

We have all heard numerous reports of harassment in the RCMP workplaces over the past number of years. I cannot see how excluding procedures to deal with harassment in collective bargaining will improve the workplace conditions experienced by RCMP members. These are very serious situations and must be dealt with promptly and fairly. The procedure for doing that would be best created under a collective bargaining system.

While for most of my life I have lived in areas where the RCMP provides public safety services, I have also lived in Vancouver and Newfoundland for considerable periods. I can honestly say that the police forces there function very well under a collective bargaining regime. I have to ask how submitting discipline procedures or concerns about workplace safety to a collective bargaining process would undermine the neutrality or stability of the RCMP.

We were reminded of how important workplace safety issues are only yesterday, when a young man died on a work site here in downtown Ottawa. While policing safety issues are clearly different, they are nonetheless critical to the lives of RCMP members across the country, particularly in more rural areas where RCMP members often work alone. Why are staffing measures explicitly excluded from the collective bargaining system offered to the RCMP in the bill?

Since collective bargaining agreements would go to arbitration if agreements cannot be made directly, RCMP management should be able to make arguments to the arbitrator if they feel demands by members would create situations that would undermine the reliability of the RCMP in any way.

The Supreme Court decision stated that limits on collective bargaining would be acceptable if they were reasonable and justified. However, other police forces all include workplace safety and discipline issues in their collective bargaining agreements, so it is a mystery why they would not be acceptable and appropriate for collective bargaining within the RCMP.

To conclude, I would just reiterate my position that I support this bill. I recognize that it was perhaps prepared hurriedly to meet the Supreme Court deadline of May 16; so I hope the government will consider important changes to this bill in committee to ensure that, namely, issues of staffing, deployment, harassment, and discipline are included in the collective bargaining system for the RCMP that would be created by this bill.

I would like to finish by wishing everybody here in this House a happy Easter and safe travels home to their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to hear that the member for Cariboo—Prince George has already made up his mind that he will not support Bill C-7, when it has not even been at committee to be reviewed.

That is very surprising, considering his very eloquent remarks on the rich tapestry and history of the RCMP and his deep regard for the force. Our government is respecting the Supreme Court ruling that respects the right to be represented in bargaining by members and reservists of the RCMP. That is exactly what this bill is all about.

The member's concerns are actually about another bill, Bill C-4, which rolls back changes that were made without any consultation in Bill C-525, which force a one-size-fits-all bargaining system on the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

Why would the member want to have that when he wants a vote free of reprisal? That is exactly the purpose of the board. They have the tools to ensure that. They have options for how to implement a vote. They have laws that support freedom from any intimidation. They have penalties and orders they can impose. They review a vote, whether it is done by card check or mandatory vote or secret ballot.

Why would the member want a one-size-fits-all approach, pre-judge this very important legislation, and be prepared to vote against legislation that is all about respecting the members of the RCMP?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure today to rise in the House to debate Bill C-7.

I will start by thanking the RCMP members in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, and I thank as well my hon. colleague from Yellowhead for his 35 years of service.

I would like it to be on the record that I was an RCMP brat. My stepfather served in the RCMP, which meant that I saw many of the small communities from the tip to the tail of British Columbia.

Our RCMP members are moms, dads, sisters, and brothers. They are volunteers in their communities. They coach minor sports, work with charities, and contribute to the health and wellness of our communities, and not just when they have the uniform on, but every day.

The men and women of the force put their uniforms on and go to work every day knowing full well that they will experience human tragedy. They know full well that their lives may be placed in danger just so that we and our families can sleep well at night. They are our silent sentinels.

The legend of the Mountie is well known: always getting their man, Dudley Do-Right, and my favourite superhero, Captain Canuck, who by day is a mild-mannered RCMP officer and by night fights evildoers.

The red serge and the campaign hat are representatives of our proud country. Core values of integrity, honesty, professionalism, respect, and accountability were exemplified by the first 150 recruits to our force back in 1873 and are now carried by the 28,461 current members of the force.

As I said earlier, my stepfather was in the RCMP. He told me long ago that it was not because of the great wage at the time but because of the pride and respect associated with the force.

The musical ride is internationally recognized. I have travelled with Mounties from coast to coast and overseas in representing Canada, and I can say that the lineups to get photos with the Mounties were always the longest at every event.

However, today our forces, all 28,461, are at capacity. There is a 30% disparity with their unionized counterparts. They are facing increasingly challenging times.

An average citizen may expect or experience one to two traumatic events in a lifetime, whereas a police officer may experience 600 to 900 traumatic events over the course of his or her career. A recent study shows that over the course of a 20-year career, a member of our police forces will face over 900 traumatic incidents.

Over 30% of our police officers suffer from PTSD. We need to break the stigma. We need to give our men and women the confidence that they can come forward and report issues, whether it be harassment or PTSD. We need to give them the confidence that they can ask for help. As well, we need to give the organization, management, and families the resources for training so that we do not unnecessarily lose another life.

We are here to talk about Bill C-7 and about a secret ballot. We are here to talk about allowing those who put their lives in danger every day the democratic right to a secret ballot without fear of intimidation or reprisal. Regardless of what labour policy reads, as my hon. colleague from across the way has said, fear and intimidation happen. Whether it is in our RCMP force, police forces, firefighters, or regular everyday workforces, fear and intimidation of some sort does happen. Harassment and intimidation take place.

Our Conservative stance is that we support the Supreme Court decision and stand with our men and women on the front line. However, we believe those who risk their lives every day deserve the democratic right to vote free of intimidation and reprisal.

Over the last couple of days, I have been accused of being against unions and our front-line members. This could not be further from the truth. Over my time, I have belonged to five unions. I believe they have a right to exist in today's work environment. I also believe that my bill, Bill C-211, calling for a national framework to deal with PTSD for our first responders, RCMP members, veterans, corrections officers, and firefighters, speaks for itself and to my belief and stance in support of those who put their lives in danger every day.

Communities in my riding are facing increased policing costs. They are struggling to be able to fund our police forces appropriately. Whether it is overtime due to illness, injury, or lack of resources, meaning members, we are struggling.

Just in my community of Williams Lake, to the south of Prince George, we have an ongoing issue with gang violence. Just last night, I was meeting with Minister of Public Safety on this issue. Just one tactic to combat this issue that we face, asking for three additional officers, would mean a tax hike of 2% on an economy that is already stressed, on a mayor, on a council, and a town facing challenging times already, and gripped with fear of the increasingly violent activities of these gangs.

We need to give appropriate resources for our police forces, for our front-line members, for our management. We need to be able to give them the opportunity to vote free of fear of reprisal. Amending Bill C-7 to allow for the democratic right to a vote is the right thing to do. The responsible thing to do is to consult with the municipalities that ultimately bear the costs of policing, so that the resources necessary to fulfill the agreements that are there, either for unionized forces or under negotiation, are in place. Giving the resources for our communities, giving the resources for our management and our police force, is the right thing to do.

However, we face challenging times. We have a government that does not believe that giving a democratic vote or voice to those who put their lives in danger is the right thing to do.

I will not be supporting this bill, but I do hope that it can get to committee so the government can do the right thing.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, especially as we are in budget week, I am reminded of the fact that I am a very ardent defender of the record of our government when it comes to budget policy and other areas.

Specifically with respect to the member's question, there is perhaps some debate about the kind of process that should exist when it comes to collective bargaining in the RCMP. However, what we have said very clearly in the House is that now we have a Supreme Court decision, so it is the responsibility of the government to respond to and implement that decision. That is what Bill C-7 does. It is important to have legislation that responds to that, but that does it in the right way.

We have made the argument about the importance of the secret ballot. The member and I have debated the secret ballot point before. I know the NDP and Liberals disagree, but we feel very strongly that working men and women should have the right to a secret ballot respected in all cases.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate. I will be splitting my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George.

On a slightly different vein, I know this has been a tough week for many of us here. I want to express my personal condolences to the Hillyer and Ford families. I also express my best wishes to member for Scarborough—Agincourt. I understand there are some health issue that have re-emerged. I really have enjoyed debating with him in the House thus far, and I look forward to him having a full recovery and continuing to contribute to this place.

Bill C-7 is about the RCMP. It is about collective bargaining in the context of the RCMP.

Before I get into some substantive arguments about the specific issue of secret ballots, which has been the focus of the back and forth by the folks in disagreement, I want to review some of the ground on our perspective of the bill.

The bill acknowledges and respects a recent Supreme Court decision, which says the RCMP is entitled to bargain collectively. For the most part, Bill C-7 is a fairly reasonable response to the court ruling and we support this legislation going to committee. That is the basic underlying groundwork here.

However, we feel very strongly that the legislation needs to protect the right of RCMP members to vote via a secret ballot for unionization. That is an important right and it is respected by Canadians in the vast majority of contexts. Working men and women in the RCMP and in other environments need to have their right to vote in a secret ballot.

Notably, as well, wage disputes will continue to be resolved through binding arbitration. There will be no striking of police officers, obviously, and that is an important point to clarify.

In the context of discussing the RCMP, I want to briefly salute the very good work done in my own constituency by the RCMP. In my riding of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and certainly in Alberta, we do not have provincial police forces, so we are served directly by the RCMP. We greatly appreciate the incredible work the RCMP does, not only in direct policing but also in very positive engagement with the community.

In some of the past work I have done with different not-for-profit organizations, it has been great to have the engagement of the RCMP. For example, I was involved with the Rotary Club of Sherwood Park. We would regularly have members of the RCMP come and update us on some of the issues and challenges in our community. We had a very positive working relationship that was facilitated by that connection.

Because of the immense respect we on this side of the House have, and I think all members have, for members of the RCMP, it is important that this legislation protect their right to make decisions about collective bargaining through a secret ballot. We are at less than 10 government bills so far. Two of them deal with union certification and neither of them protect a right to a secret ballot. In fact, one of them, which we have already debated in this place, explicitly eliminated the protection of the right to secret ballot. It is clear how the government sees the issue of the secret ballot.

I said before in the House, I would have thought this issue would have been resolved. We are again having this 19th century debate about why secret ballots are actually important, again, something I think many people would have thought was settled.

It is important to identify why a secret ballot is important and I want to set out what I see as four key motivating arguments for the secret ballot. First, they protect the right to privacy. Second, they ensure protection against reprisals. Third, they ensure protection against corruption. Fourth, they facilitate a necessary process of deliberation that allows voters to most effectively express what is in their own interests.

First is the issue of a right to privacy. A public ballot does not respect an individual's right to privacy. It requires individuals to write or declare publicly their political convictions. There was a time when this is how elections happened, when people had to declare publicly for who they were voting for, and there were all kinds of problems with that. One of them was that their basic right to have their privacy protected in terms of their deeply-held political convictions was not respected. The reason we would see the importance of a right to privacy in this context is that a person's opinions are, in a meaningful way, his or her own property. My opinions are my opinions, not just in the sense that I hold them, but that they are mine to dispose of, to share or not to share as I would wish.

Laws and systems of administration or certification that do not allow individuals to keep their opinions to themselves or dispose of them as they wish are violations of their privacy. They are, in a sense, violations of their ownership of their own opinions.

This also has negative practical consequences as well. In addition to violating the basic privacy rights of members of the RCMP, in this case, not having a secret ballot, having a public ballot, always creates the risk of reprisal. This is very much the early history of the movement to the secret ballot.

Secret ballots were introduced in the 19th century in the U.K., for example, around the time of the Great Reform Act, and as the franchise was extended, as more people were being allowed to vote, there was a recognition, especially for those who were more economically disadvantaged and therefore dependent on the employ of those who were wealthier, that people were vulnerable to political pressure or reprisals in the context of a public ballot.

The history is that the secret ballot was very much brought in to protect the rights of people, of working men and women, to be able to express themselves politically without fear of reprisal.

It is perverse, ironic, and quite unfortunate that it is precisely in the environment of union certification, when we are talking again about the basic political rights of working men and women, that the government is clearly not respecting the importance of the secret ballot.

There is, of course, always the possibility that, in a public ballot, someone would face some kind of reprisal, a negative social or other response from colleagues, if they were not doing or voting the way that this other person wished them to.

The third argument in favour of the secret ballot is that it provides protection against corruption. Before there were secret ballots, there was the real risk of people being paid to vote in a certain way, and that is a possibility when we have a public ballot. It is obviously not a possibility when there is a secret ballot, as there is no way to effectively buy a vote because we do not know if the vote is then actually provided as paid for.

That was another argument that was important in the initial evolution of the secret ballot and to some extent remains important now, that there is no possibility of there being inducements when there is a secret ballot.

Finally, secret ballots ensure there is a process of deliberation that happens before a vote; so a vote date is set, there is an opportunity for both sides of an argument to present their opinions, for there to be a conversation, and then for a conclusion to arise. I think most people accept the importance of this process of deliberation. That is why we have an election campaign. That is why we have a period of debate before an election takes place.

The advantages of this for working men and women in the context of certification are very clear. Someone might come up to me and say, “Why not sign this card?” and present one side of the argument to me. I might say, “Sure, that sounds like a good idea”, but I might feel differently if I were presented with counter-arguments. Having that process of deliberation ensures that people have time to think through an act according to their interests.

I think these are some key reasons why a secret ballot is important in this context and in all contexts.

Here are the principal arguments we hear against the secret ballot, specifically in the context of certification. People on the other side say that a secret ballot remains an option here, but it is just not required. All these arguments about the importance of a secret ballot indicate why a secret ballot should be guaranteed. People should have the certainty of knowing that their privacy will be protected.

If we said that, in the next general election, there would be secret ballots in some ridings but not in others, I think we would say that was insufficient, that there should be a guarantee of respect for individuals' privacy when they cast their ballots.

Certainly the possibility of employer intimidation and an imbalance in the workplace is raised from time to time. Certainly, though, there is no serious possibility of intimidation against individual voters who keep their perspectives quiet and vote in a secret ballot.

There is always the risk of intimidation against organizers of a certification drive, and I would acknowledge that; but of course the possibility of intimidation in that case exists regardless of whether or not there is a secret ballot, because for somebody who is organizing, whether it is in the context of a card check or in the context of a secret ballot, there is still the possibility of intimidation there.

Further, we are dealing with the government. The likelihood of the government exerting employer-type intimidation is very unlikely.

For these reasons, we see the value of the bill, and we support it going to the committee. However, we hope the government will also see the value of the secret ballot.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear. We do support the outline of Bill C-7, but we are encouraging the Liberal government to take this back to committee and have a fulsome discussion on the merits of a secret ballot over the card check system. I am very relieved to hear from a member of the Liberal government that they are willing to have that discussion. I hope he will follow through on that commitment to have a legitimate discussion on why we should have a secret ballot over the card check system. I think most of us on this side would support Bill C-7 if that were part of the discussion.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to follow my respected colleague from Yellowhead. I thank him for sharing his time with me. I have a lot of respect for his 35 years of service with the RCMP, protecting the communities of Canada. We are truly blessed to have him as a member of our caucus.

I want to talk a bit about some of the history. I am very blessed to have a deep RCMP and North West Mounted Police history in my riding. Fort Macleod was founded in 1874. It is now a world-renowned museum of the North West Mounted Police in western Canada. Downtown Fort Macleod is now a provincial historic site, as well as the museum.

There is also the Alberta Provincial Police Building in Crowsnest Pass, which was founded in 1918. I am proud to say that the Conservative government last year contributed $100,000 to the refurbishing of that police building to protect its history. I am sure many people in the House would like to know that Corporal Stephen Lawson was killed in front of that building in the early 1900s. One of the accomplices in the shooting was Florence Lassandro. She was convicted of that murder and was the first and only woman ever hanged in Alberta's history. That is a bit of Alberta's history.

Today I want to speak to Bill C-7 and say how disappointed I am. On this side of the House, I think many of us are. We continue to have to challenge the Liberal government on the importance of accountability and transparency when it comes to unions, and specifically the importance of a secret ballot.

Members of the RCMP are out there each and every day protecting our rights, freedoms, and democracy. Why we would miss this opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with them and protect their democratic rights when we have the chance to do so? It is disappointing that we are missing this opportunity by putting forward Bill C-7, which does not include the right to a secret ballot. I ask the Liberal government to send the bill back in order to add the provision of a secret ballot for RCMP members when they are faced with the question of certifying or not certifying as a union. Simply put, that is the right thing to do.

Members of the RCMP have the democratic right to a free and fair secret ballot vote when certifying or decertifying as a union. Every one of us in the House was elected by way of secret ballot. Every member of a provincial or municipal government was elected by way of secret ballot. It only makes sense that we would be sharing that democratic right, not a privilege but a democratic right, to a secret ballot at all levels, including unions.

A secret ballot is the cornerstone of our democracy and at the heart of Canadian values. However, the Liberals have shown again, with the combination of Bill C-7 and Bill C-4, that they see the right of secret ballot as being somehow obsolete. In many cases, they do not feel it is democratic at all, which I find to be extremely disappointing and concerning.

This is about balance and creating a fair environment in which workers are the ones making the choice they feel is best suited to their needs. The Supreme Court decision speaks to allowing the RCMP the right to associate for the purpose of collective bargaining. I think all of us in the House agree and support that decision. However, we also believe this is an opportunity to vote by way of a secret ballot, and it should be a privilege and democratic right that the RCMP have this opportunity.

Our specific intent has always been to preserve the democratic rights of Canadian workers through increasing public confidence in unions, but to have that confidence, unions must operate in a transparent and accountable way without any chance of undue influence or coercion. Our democratic system was designed with a secret ballot as its keystone, specifically to maintain the integrity of the vote and to allow citizens to cast their ballot in privacy.

The jobs minister has made it very clear that she does not believe in the integrity of a secret ballot. In fact, she has said that the card-check system is a much more democratic way to certify or decertify a union. Recently in committee meetings, she was asked why she would repeal Bill C-525, which gave employees the democratic right to a secret ballot to decertify or certify a union. I will read this quote, because her answer was very clear on where she and the Liberal Government stood in terms of democracy. She said:

The card-check system is a perfectly democratic way of gauging support as it ensures that an absolute majority of employees support the union, not just those who come out and vote.

Our jobs minister is saying in committee that a card check system is a much more democratic way to decide if a majority of people support whatever that issue is, over a secret ballot; that somehow when people actually show up to vote for something, they are not legitimate.

I went around door-knocking in my riding, as I know most of the members of this House did as well in their ridings as we went through the election period. If I went up to ask those people for their vote right then, and I wanted them to sign a piece of paper that would tell me that they voted for me while I was standing there, how often do you feel that person would be telling the truth?

Yes, Mr. Speaker?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to 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.

I will be sharing my time with the member for the great riding of Foothills.

As a former member of the RCMP, I was proud to serve with Canada's national police force. I recall the first day that I joined the force and I recall my last day. All of my 35 years within that organization were great.

Like many thousands of other members from the 1960s and 1970s who joined Canada's traditional world-famous redcoats, I can attest that I did not join up for the $4,800 a year but for the pride in serving our great country in Canada's police force.

We went where the force wanted us to go, from sea to sea to sea. We were all proud to serve, and we gave much to the force in long hours with no overtime.

We got the job done with basic equipment by doing the job with pride. In those days, some of our cars did not have radios. We were notified by a light that was turned on over the community that we had to return to the detachment, and we did so because that was our job.

Things needed to change with the rapidly changing times of the 1970s. Better equipment, better communications, better working conditions, and better compensation were the issues facing us. This was accomplished by a unique program that came about in 1974. The RCMP senior command listened and made changes. One big change was the division staff relations representation system, known to the membership as the DSRR.

The DSRR's work moved our force to the forefront. We remained one of the top 10 police forces in Canada in relation to compensation and working conditions through the efforts and great work of the RCMP DSRR system. We needed to have a say with respect to promotions, discipline, and grievances, and the DSRR program protected and served our members through the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s up to this present day.

Today it appears to have lost some of its effectiveness in promoting working conditions, compensation, and so forth, for reasons I do not want to go into. Last year I was shocked when I examined the 2015 RCMP review of the force in comparison to other police forces in Canada. When I proudly served, we were always rated among the top five police forces in Canada. Last year the RCMP was ranked below 50 other police forces in Canada with respect to pay, compensation, limited-duration postings, etc.

Canada's internationally acclaimed police force should not be at the bottom of the pile. It should be at the top. My personal feeling is that the DSRR program worked well at one time and could work well again if all of the departments within government would work together for the betterment of our men and women in uniform. This also applies to the military, firefighters, and first responders. Our men and women in uniform protect Canadians from harm's way. They often risk their lives in serving their communities, their provinces, and their country.

Personally, I believe that the RCMP, Canada's international police force, should not be unionized. There are so many situations that might complicate how this great organization performs its policing roles in the future, and I could go on for quite some time explaining what I foresee as future problems. However, I want to switch hats for a moment.

I was formerly mayor of a northern British Columbia city. For most cities, the cost of policing is one of their biggest budgetary items. I would like to provide a comparison of policing costs, and I will use British Columbia as an example.

The first example is with respect to RCMP communities. For communities with a population of under 5,000, the province pays 70% and the federal government pays 30%. For communities with a population between 5,000 and 15,000, the municipality pays 70% and the federal government still pays 30%. For communities with a population of over 15,000, the municipality now pays 90% and the federal government pays 10%.

Second, a comparison done several years ago showed that unionized municipal police forces in 12 communities in B.C. had 2,262 police officers looking after roughly 1.2 million people, at a cost of $348 million. RCMP contract services in B.C. at the same time in 28 communities with a population of more than 15,000 had 2,692 police officers looking after 2,109,601 people, at a cost of $369,652,000, or $22 million more for doing twice the work.

In my opinion, if the RCMP is unionized, the cost to communities across Canada contracted to the RCMP for policing services will increase dramatically.

Our Conservative Party respects the Supreme Court decision that the RCMP officers are entitled to bargain collectively. However, I cannot support any legislation that denies employees, especially RCMP members, the right to vote in a secret ballot on whether to unionize. The court's first and fundamental tenet of the charter right is employees' choice, and that is not reflected in this bill.

We do not use a show of hands or a public petition in our democratic elections, nor should we do in the workplace. The RCMP risk their lives every day. The least we can do is to give them the democratic right to vote, free of all intimidation, on whether to unionize.

We support this legislation going to committee, where we will ask the government to amend it to explicitly allow RCMP members the right to vote by secret ballot on whether or not to unionize. The RCMP's collective rights under paragraph 2(b) of the charter can be exercised by their employee choice at the first instance, saying whether they want an association or not, and that vote should be conducted in a way that conforms with our democratic principles, namely, by secret ballot.

Bill C-7 would bring certain parts of the workplace relationship outside of the bill, certain elements through the grievance process, and certain elements of the workplace would not be subject to the collective bargaining relationship. That is important, due to the unique role, chain of command structure, and heritage of the RCMP as a police force.

I urge the minister to work alongside the commissioner of the RCMP to ensure the bargaining and the well-being of our people, in safeguarding the employees' wellness in uniform and afterwards.

In closing, I want to remind my colleagues that RCMP members risk their lives every day. The least we can do is to give them the democratic right to vote on whether or not to unionize, free of all intimidation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, if colleagues are so inclined, I could perhaps table at the end of my answer to the Thursday question, this very incisive weekly business today. However, I will leave that to your judgment, Mr. Speaker.

Today, the House is debating Bill C-7, the RCMP labour relations act. I hope we will conclude second reading at the end of the day today.

As my friend noted, the House will adjourn for the Easter break and allow members to return to work in their constituencies.

When we return on April 11, the House will complete the four days of debate on the budget, April 11, 12, 13, and 14. I know colleagues will want to speak to the budget. Those will be designated as days to debate the budget.

I want to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and Kelly a happy Easter. I also wish our colleagues and their families a happy Easter and a good break.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[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 thsoe 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.

[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 am honoured to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-7.

I would like to start by commending the RCMP on the excellent work it does. We sometimes forget about everything that happens behind the scenes to keep us safe as we go about our day all across the country. These men and women work all year long in all kinds of areas, including commercial crimes, drugs, and investigations, but they work primarily on keeping us safe and secure.

This week's attacks in Brussels were a brutal reminder of how fragile that security is and how privileged we are to have a capable and reliable police force.

I say this from personal experience, since my father worked for the RCMP for 34 years. He was a sergeant in his section, and throughout my childhood and adolescence, I was a witness to what he went through on a daily basis. On many occasions, my father had to leave home to go work for days, weeks, and once even several months at a time, to help keep Canadians safe.

We worried about him and his safety every day. My father was always committed to his work. Even at his office, doing his day-to-day work, his primary concern was the safety of those who worked with him.

It is thanks to my father that I am here today in the House and I can speak to this matter. My life experience has made me the strong political woman I am today, and my father made sure of that. I am extremely proud and I want to acknowledge him here in the House. I want to say a very big thank you to him. I am honoured to be able to talk about his work, his life, and of course, the bargaining rights of all RCMP members.

I would remind the House that Gaétan Delisle, a labour representative with the RCMP C division in Quebec City, led the fight for bargaining rights for RCMP members. Mr. Delisle's career path was never easy. He was even suspended a few times, because he wanted to form an association and secure the right to collective bargaining.

Respecting our men and women in uniform means more than just thanking them for their good work. They also have rights, of course, and those rights must be respected. The right to bargain collectively is one such right, and a very important one at that.

I introduced a bill that promotes these rights. The recognition of workers' right to bargain is important in every sector and in every respect. I know a thing or two about that, considering my union background. Bargaining and workers' right to health and safety were part of my everyday life.

The NDP is of the opinion that RCMP members should have the same rights that are enjoyed by every other police force in Canada, including the right to collective bargaining. Obviously, RCMP members should have the right to the best conditions when it comes to workplace health and safety. We would like to see RCMP members have a real collective bargaining process that goes beyond issues of pay and benefits. When we talk about organizing, people often think it is just to deal with benefits and salaries. However, it is much more than that. There are many issues that can be discussed and brought forward. The members who are doing the work every day can make changes when it comes to health and safety, for example.

Creating a new regime for negotiating collective agreements will help improve labour relations. I believe that it is fair and just for all members of the RCMP, who work hard day and night to keep Canadians safe.

I would like to reiterate the comments made by my colleagues who pointed out in their speeches that the NDP is quite concerned about some of the issues, such as harassment and health and safety, that are excluded from the bill.

The Supreme Court has rightly ruled that the most important aspect of collective bargaining is the employees' freedom to pursue their own work goals within their workplace.

I believe it is important to highlight one part of the Supreme Court ruling, which reads as follows:

First, it is not apparent how an exclusion from a statutorily protected collective bargaining process ensures neutrality, stability or even reliability. The exclusion of RCMP members from the federal public service collective bargaining regime...fostered, rather than inhibited, dissatisfaction and unrest within the RCMP.

Second, it is not established that permitting meaningful collective bargaining for RCMP members will disrupt the stability of the police force or affect the public’s perception of its neutrality. The government offered no persuasive evidence to that effect. Empirical research tends to show the opposite, as does provincial experience with unionized police forces...

There are times when RCMP members have to respond to calls alone, often in remote or northern communities, for example. Their health, their safety, and even their security must be guaranteed as they go out and do their job with such dedication, day in and day out.

We believe that the time has come to allow employees who work on the ground to come to the table, to negotiate as equals and to decide how some of these issues are going to be dealt with. The employees themselves are likely to have some very practical solutions to help the police force operate more effectively. By giving them these rights, we can show that we respect the work they have to do and that we recognize them as human beings.

Uniformed police officers are heros, regardless of the situation. Underneath those uniforms, however, are human beings. We need to keep that in mind and give them the power to bargain and make changes to ensure their own safety.

This bill provides an opportunity for us to respect the spirit of what collective bargaining should be. We recognize the RCMP's unique role as Canada's national police force, as well as the importance of the rights of our men and women in uniform and of giving them a means to uphold those rights.

This is why we believe the bill should go to committee for further study, so that it can be examined more closely and amended in consideration of RCMP members, the men and women who go to work every day to keep us safe.

Out of respect for them, everyone should vote in favour of this bill at second reading in the House and send it to committee for further study.

We will be looking for arguments from government in support of specific exclusions. In the absence of those arguments, we will be presenting proposals to improve this legislation and make sure that RCMP members get the right to bargain collectively, both in the spirit and the letter of the law.

The House resumed from March 22 consideration of the motion 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Jim Hillyer

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of sadness, given the tragic news of the passing of our colleague Jim Hillyer. I want to add my voice to those of colleagues who have spoken and express my sympathies to his wife and children.

We have had discussions among the parties, and it is my hope that we can dispose of two quick procedural matters before we adjourn the House.

I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, on Thursday, March 24, 2016, the House shall consider 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 at second reading, and when no member rises to speak or at the expiry of the time provided for government orders, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be deemed put and the motion for second reading of the bill be deemed adopted on division.

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

As the labour critic for the New Democratic Party, it is my pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-7. However, as the labour critic, it is also my duty to rise to point out important aspects of the bill that I see are missing and need to be addressed.

Like many opportunities I have had to stand and speak to labour bills, I commend the Liberal government for moving forward, but I would ask it to move forward a bit faster, sooner, and to address issues that are missing.

The RCMP members have been prohibited from collective bargaining since 1918, and to this day remain the only police force in Canada without the benefit of a collective agreement to regulate and protect their working conditions. As we have heard in the House, 2016 is a good year for many things, and it is a good day for collective bargaining and the rights of working men and women in this country.

For our police officers working in the RCMP, the wait is finally over. Unfortunately, this group of police officers had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to get this right, a right that their fellow officers and working men and women have had for a very long time. Like many victories, it is bittersweet, but it is a victory for these working men and women all the same.

In January 2015, a Supreme Court ruling found that the government had failed to establish permission for meaningful collective bargaining for the RCMP members that would not disrupt the stability of the police force or affect the public perceptions of its neutrality. Therefore in its ruling, it declared that the prohibition of collective bargaining for the RCMP members to be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and gave the previous government one year to modify the legislation. I feel that the previous government showed its disrespect for these workers and this decision by not moving on this, leaving little time after the election to respond. Now we find that the Liberals are looking to push the bill through before the May 16 deadline.

The Supreme Court said that the limits on collective bargaining should be acceptable, if it could be shown that those limits are reasonable, demonstratably justified, and necessary to achieve the goal of maintaining an independent and objective police force.

This, of course, brings us to today and Bill C-7, and to my point about what is missing in the bill for working men and women in the RCMP. We have heard from others who have risen to speak and support the bill, but also from my colleagues on this side of the House, of our need to point out the important things that we feel are missing from Bill C-7 and need to be addressed.

They include a number of issues that most working men and women include in their collective bargaining, have a right to be involved in, and have as rights within their workplace. We feel that the most important exclusions are issues around staffing, deployment, unfortunately harassment, and discipline. These issues have the largest impact on the health and safety of RCMP members and are central to most of the public complaints that RCMP members have made about their workplace.

It would not come as a surprise that people would know that as the labour critic and a member of the New Democratic Party, we support and have supported the collective bargaining of the RCMP members. We have always recognized workers' rights to meaningful collective bargaining, and that those issues extend beyond the issues of pay and benefits alone. Good collective bargaining and good collective agreements also include a discussion and decisions with the employer and the employees on important issues around workplace safety and health issues. These can sometimes be as important, if not more important, to employees in bargaining.

As we know from the RCMP members, and from what we know about what is going on within the police force, these are some of the most pressing issues for these particular workers. They are very much linked to their working conditions around deployment, harassment, and discipline.

Instituting a collective bargaining system—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today in the House in support of Bill C-7. In my riding of London North Centre we have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Ontario headquarters, as well as the RCMP London, Ontario, detachment. Combined, these two offices have approximately 165 regular members. Many of these individuals are my constituents, I am proud to say.

I am also very proud of the work these men and women do in keeping Canadians safe every single day. With that in mind, it is an honour to be part of this debate and take a stand on behalf of these men and women, the members and reservists of the RCMP.

The bill before us today would uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. I emphasize that point. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years, but it is a right that has been denied to the members and reservists of the RCMP, individuals who over the last 143 years have contributed so much to our proud, strong, and free nation. This bill would rectify that issue.

This bill is a clear and reasoned response to the Supreme Court ruling of January 16, 2015. The court affirmed in that decision that subsection 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “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”. The court also determined that, “the current labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence”.

It is, therefore, my pleasure to support this bill today, a bill that would provide RCMP members and reservists with freedom of choice and independence from management while still recognizing their unique operational reality. The bill in question is a product of careful consideration of the result of consultations with key stakeholders, the first with regular members of the RCMP and the second with provinces, territories, and municipalities that have policing agreements with the RCMP.

Bill C-7 has a number of important features, and I will now go over those briefly.

It would provide for independent binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process for bargaining impasses. Consistent with other police forces across this country, the members of the RCMP bargaining unit would not be permitted to strike. This was the strong preference of those who participated in the online consultation.

The bill would also provide for a single national bargaining unit composed solely of RCMP members appointed to a rank and reservists; and the RCMP bargaining agent, should one be certified, would have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. Again, regular members showed clear support for these provisions. The bill would also exclude officers appointed to the ranks of inspector and above from representation. Finally, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be the administrative tribunal for collective bargaining matters related to the RCMP bargaining units, as well as grievances related to a collective agreement.

The bill before us today is consistent with our government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country. Take, for instance, Bill C-5, which would repeal division 20 of Bill C-59, the 2015 budget implementation bill, tabled last April by the previous government. It gave the government the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system onto the public service.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act was originally passed in 1967 to give public servants the right to unionize and bargain collectively. It is fundamental to ensuring collaborative efforts between the parties and to improving the ability of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

I have many public service employees in my riding of London North Centre. In fact, I had the privilege of meeting with some of their leadership last week and they made their voices heard.

The actions of the previous government, to unilaterally impose a new sick leave system while ignoring the collective bargaining process, were unfortunate and disrespectful. Our government made it clear that we would not be party to an approach that disregards the process of negotiation between an employer and a group of employees aimed at reaching agreements on the terms and conditions of employment. By repealing those provisions in Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process.

We believe in collective bargaining, and the bill before us today honours our belief in this right. We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations, yet over the last few years, many fundamental labour rights have been rolled back. We can just look at Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which would both have changed how unions could be certified and decertified, and would place new financial reporting requirements on them.

These bills were passed without the traditional employer, union, and government consultation process used for labour relations law reform. The result has been that it is now more difficult for unions and the employer to bargain collectively in good faith. We need, instead, to ensure that workers can organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in safe environments. To that end, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour has also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Bill C-4 would restore the procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed prior to June 16, 2015. This bill would also amend the Income Tax Act to remove the unnecessary requirements on labour organizations and labour trusts for the public reporting of financial information.

As hon. members are well aware, legislation is already in place to ensure that unions make such financial information available. Section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, for instance, requires unions to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge, rendering these additional reporting requirements unnecessary. The bill before us today is very much in keeping with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations.

Engaging in collective bargaining is a right long exercised by all other police forces in Canada. The bill would respect that right while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force. It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due.

I again would like to thank those members and reservists of the RCMP for their dedicated service to our country. I am proud to have such a strong RCMP presence in my riding of London North Centre, and I commend RCMP members for going to work each and every day with the safety of all Canadians and all Londoners at the forefront of their minds.

To that end, I ask all members to show their support for members and reservists of the RCMP by voting in favour of this bill.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I said many times in my earlier remarks, we believe that the majority of provisions contained in Bill C-7 are good. In fact, I think if the member took the time to really do a lot of research, he would find out very quickly that some draft legislation that our previous Conservative government was planning on introducing, but we got caught up by time, was eerily similar to the provisions contained in Bill C-7, except for one major provision, which is that the government does not want to allow secret ballots; we would allow them.

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

Madam Speaker, let us recognize why we have Bill C-7 here today. The Supreme Court of Canada made a decision, which in essence said that the RCMP, an institution we all hold very dear to our hearts, needed to be afforded the opportunity for a free collective bargaining process. As a result, we have legislation now that has been introduced by the Government of Canada in recognition of how important it is that we bring it about in a timely fashion.

I understand the passion with which the member talks with regard to Bill C-7, with respect to the secret ballots. I heard many of the very same arguments with regard to Bill C-4.

I would suggest to the member that he allow these pieces of legislation to go to committee—as Bill C-4 has done and, hopefully, Bill C-7 will to too, in a timely fashion—recognizing what we really want to do is to set the framework, something that RCMP officers from coast to coast to coast have been asking for: that is, the ability to have negotiations, free negotiations, which is something in which the Supreme Court has concurred.

I wonder if he could say something positive about the legislation, in terms of answering the call of the RCMP officers in responding to the Supreme Court of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I have good news for the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. Under this legislation, Bill C-7, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will have both tools available—either a secret ballot or a card system—and it can apply the one it believes will give the fairest and most representative outcome.

I do not even want to say how many times the member has made allegations that are simply not true. This is available, and it will be a neutral board. There will not be employer interference or other interference. A neutral board of up to 12 members would determine which of the tools would be appropriate.

I want to ask the member this question. Bill C-525, which he was saying such nice things about, was brought forward by the Conservative government with no consultation, yet with evidence from their own research—which they hid—that suggested that bill was going to undermine labour relations and unions. That was on the one side.

On the other side we have Bill C-7, which would give a neutral board options for how to have the votes held so that they can do it in the interests of the RCMP members and there has been full consultation by RCMP members.

Which one is the more democratic? Which one gives the most freedom of choice of those two options?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your assistance in trying to get the chamber a bit more organized and a little more quiet. It is surprising, because normally when I stand to speak, members opposite hang on every word. Therefore, it was a little disturbing to find out here were actually people in here who did not want to hear what I had to say.

When I concluded my remarks prior to question period, I was in the midst of telling all members about my history both with the RCMP and the union movement in Canada.

In particular, with the union movement, I mentioned that my father had been a senior member of the United Steelworkers of America. In fact, he was the western Canadian head of the United Steelworkers of America. He trained Ken Neumann, who is now the national director of the United Steelworkers of America. Therefore, I have an intimate knowledge of the union movement.

I recall my father taking me on many occasions to union meetings when I was extremely young. I was never quite sure why he did that. It was either (a) an obligation to his babysitting commitment to my mother, or (b) he was trying to groom me to become a labour representative or a union representative such as himself. I suppose, in retrospect, if it was (a), he succeeded admirably and if it was (b), he failed miserably. Nonetheless, I was able to observe many things from these meetings, these union gatherings that I went to.

One of the things that struck me then, and it certainly continues to strike me now, was the fact that in the vast majority of cases whenever there was a vote to be cast at a union meeting, whether it would be a local union or a larger gathering of several locals, the votes were always public. I could not understand that because it was obviously something I believed, even at a young age, should be done in private.

However, I also saw the opposite side of the coin. Back in the early 1960s, when my father tried to organize a potash mine in Esterhazy, Saskatchewan, he would go down there with sign-up cards and get a number of the workers in the potash mine to sign those cards indicating their preference to unionize. Then mysteriously many times those same members who signed the cards would no longer be employees of the potash mine. That was pure and simple intimidation.

I have seen intimidation on both sides of the ledger. I have seen union members try to intimidate or at least pressure some of their fellow co-workers into voting in a particular manner. I also know from first-hand experience that there has been pressure or intimidation from the management side to try to influence the vote of certain workers. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable. I think most Canadians would feel that it is as an affront to natural law, justice and absolute fairness in our country.

The way to get over that is to have secret ballots. If union members were able to vote freely according to their own beliefs in a secret ballot environment, intimidation would not play a part in this whole process. Management would be unable to successfully intimidate employees and union members would not be successful in their attempts to pressure or intimidate their co-workers. A secret ballot provides the assurance that each and every union member would be able to vote according to his or her conscience and beliefs.

For example, I have seen strike votes where unions get together in a public environment and have to vote in favour or against a strike by a show of hands. I have experienced first-hand some very serious pressure and intimidation. If union leadership wanted a strike to occur, many members who may not want to go on strike because they could not afford to take a reduced salary or no salary at all because they had mouths to feed at home were pressured into voting in favour of their union boss' belief that a strike was necessary. That is just as unacceptable as it would be if a management member tried to intimidate a union member or a non-union member into voting against certification.

Secret ballots are the absolute solution and remedy to intimidation factors and tactics, yet the government feels otherwise. For some reason, it feels that Bill C-525, which allowed for secret balloting in either union certification or decertification, should be eliminated, and that changes to the Canada Labour Code should be enacted to go back to the old system. I just cannot agree with that.

Although I believe that Bill C-7 is on balance a worthwhile piece of legislation containing many provisions that I agree with, the single provision that does not allow for secret balloting on union certification or decertification makes it impossible for me to support this particular piece of legislation.

One could present an argument that the system that had been in place for many years, whereby petitions could be circulated and cards could be signed, was appropriate, but that certainly has not proven to be the case in the majority of provinces across Canada. In fact, in the majority of provinces in Canada, provincial legislation deems that secret balloting must take place in determining either certification or decertification of a union, and it has worked well.

I could also share from personal experience conversations I have had with many rank-and-file union members, who have expressed the same concern that I am expressing here. That is the concern that their right to vote freely has been impugned because of the public nature of voting within many unions.

Let me simply say that while Bill C-7 contains many solid provisions that support the RCMP and allow its members to determine their own fate when it comes to unionizing and enjoying collective bargaining, and while many of those provisions we heard earlier in debate today protect them on many other fronts, the single fact that the government does not see fit to allow one of the most fundamental tenets in democracy, that being secret ballots, makes the bill absolutely unacceptable to me and, I am sure, to all my colleagues on the Conservative benches.

What is the solution? Frankly, we have heard many times before, particularly from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, that committees should take a stronger and more active role in determining legislation in the House. That is a position that I quite frankly agree with and support, so we are simply asking that an amendment be considered at committee that would allow this legislation to include the provision of secret balloting before being presented to the House in its final form for third reading.

I do not know whether or not that is going to happen. I could assume that we will be able to move an amendment at committee and engage in debate, but I sense quite strongly that despite the nice words from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, their committee members will be whipped and instructed to vote against any amendment that the official opposition brings forward in relation to secret ballots.

Once again, I find it extremely difficult to stand in this place and completely understand how the government can defend that position. Every one of the members of this place was elected by secret ballot. The Speaker of this chamber was elected by a secret ballot. Why is that the case? Why is it the case that in almost every democracy in the world, secret ballots have been accepted as the norm?

The government seems to be swimming upstream. Why is it doing that? Quite frankly, Liberals made a number of commitments during the election campaign to try to gather support from the union movement in Canada. One of them was the commitment to repeal Bill C-377 on union transparency. Another was the commitment to repeal Bill C-525, which allowed for secret balloting in certification and decertification votes. I suppose on the one hand they are keeping their commitment to their election campaign platform, but it flies in the face of any democratic institution that we know of.

There is one other point I would like to make. It has been mentioned several times in today's debate, primarily by the member for Spadina—Fort York, that Bill C-7 does not disallow the RCMP from determining their own fate when it comes to a secret ballot. He says they are able to vote for certification or non-certification by secret ballot if they so choose. That is factually incorrect. Because of the provisions in Bill C-4, which would change the Canada Labour Code, the RCMP would not be able to choose a secret ballot even if the majority of their members wanted to.

I would point out to the member for Spadina—Fort York that what he is attempting to state in the House as fact is absolutely just the opposite. It is factually incorrect. Because of Bill C-4, the RCMP would not have the ability to vote for union certification, should they desire, in a secret ballot environment.

I would suggest to all members of this place that if one were to poll rank-and-file members of the RCMP and simply ask them if they would be in favour of a secret ballot process for certification, the overwhelming majority of non-union members would state yes, they want a secret ballot.

I have spoken with a great many RCMP members. I have spoken in the House of my close relationship with many members, both present and past. Almost to a person, when speaking about the certification process, these members say they would prefer to have a secret ballot.

I firmly believe that whenever the vote is taken, RCMP members will vote to unionize. I have that sense. However, they should be allowed to do so in a secret ballot environment. They should be allowed to cast their ballot knowing full well that no one else will know how they voted. That is something we hold dear in our country, yet the Liberals seem to be reversing the democratic will of the people by forcing public notification of union certification votes. That is unacceptable.

I can assure the House that on this side, unless an amendment is brought forward to reverse the secret balloting provisions and allow for secret ballots in union certification votes, members on the Conservative side will be voting against Bill C-7, and for good reason.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, members in this place who know me and who know me well know that I am an unabashed supporter of the RCMP.

I come by that support honestly, I believe. I have many friends currently in the RCMP whom I still consider to be very close to me, I have many retired members of the RCMP whom I see frequently, and unfortunately I have had many friends in the RCMP who have since passed.

As I am a representative from Saskatchewan and have lived most of my life in the city of Regina, home of Depot, one can understand my affinity for the RCMP and the work it does on behalf of all Canadians. However, to me it is more than just the friendships and the relationships I have gained over the years with members of the force. It is far more personal than that to me. My mother's first husband was an officer of the RCMP who was killed on duty at Depot. That has stayed with me my entire life. It reminds me, and I think it should remind all members in this place, of the inherent dangers that RCMP members face each and every day in the course of their duties.

I, unfortunately, have attended far too many funerals of members who have lost their lives in the course of their day-to-day duties. I was in Edmonton 11 years ago to attend the funeral of those brave officers who died in Mayerthorpe. I can say without equivocation that it is still the most emotional ceremony I have ever attended.

I take no pride in saying that I have attended these ceremonies. It is with great sorrow that I make mention of them, because it reminds me again that we as Canadians, and particularly as parliamentarians, should be doing everything that we can to support the RCMP in all of their endeavours.

The RCMP is iconic. Many members before me have spoken of that. They have spoken of the international acclaim rightly accorded the RCMP. It is the brand that I think most Canadians take pride in. In fact, a survey done not too many years ago indicated that the RCMP had the strongest brand of any organization in the world, second only to Coca-Cola. I would suggest to the House, as I have suggested to many officers within the RCMP, that the brand is so enduring because of the exemplary work that it has done over the years, starting in 1873 with the North-West Mounted Police and continuing on until 1920, when the RCMP, the modern-day RCMP as we know it, was formed.

This national police force of ours is, in my estimation, one of the best, if not the best, police force in the world. Notwithstanding the challenges that the RCMP has faced over the last number of years, most recently about sexual harassment within the workforce, the force continues to be a thriving and very necessary force in our lives. It is part of our culture. That is why I am so pleased to be able to speak on Bill C-7, which fundamentally affects the way the RCMP organizes and goes about its business.

Before I get into some of the details of Bill C-7, let me also say that I have a great background in and a great knowledge of the union movement in Canada. There may be members on the benches opposite who will accuse me and some of my colleagues of being anti-union and say that we are not supporting Bill C-7 because we are fundamentally and ideologically opposed to unions. I can say from my standpoint that this statement is certainly not true.

I was born and brought up in a union household. My father was formerly the head of the western Canadian division of the United Steelworkers of America. In fact, he mentored the current national director of the United Steelworkers, Ken Neumann. I still see Ken very often in the airports. We talk fondly about my father and the influence my father had on Ken and the work he is doing today. I can absolutely say without hesitation and without equivocation that I understand the role and, I would suggest, the necessary role that the union movement and the labour movement has in Canada.

However, there are many aspects of that movement and of unions themselves with which I have very fundamental and profound disagreements. With the Speaker's permission, I will get into those disagreements and into the content of Bill C-7 shortly after question period concludes.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-7, a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists.

This legislation marks a significant milestone in the history of both the RCMP and Canadian labour relations. With the passage of this bill, for the first time RCMP members and reservists would have the same collective bargaining rights as other police forces in Canada. They would be able to choose an employee organization to represent them in labour negotiations with their employer, the Treasury Board of Canada.

Specifically, this bill proposes to amend 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.

There are a number of particularly noteworthy aspects of this legislation that I would now like to highlight.

The bill would give RCMP members and reservists the right to have an independent bargaining agent of their own. It would provide for a single national bargaining unit for reservists and RCMP members appointed to a rank. In order to be certified as the bargaining agent for the RCMP bargaining unit, an employee organization would be required to have the representation of RCMP members as its primary mandate. Moreover, the process provided under the Public Service Labour Relations Act would be used to exclude other managerial and confidential positions. This means that the bill would exclude officers at the inspector level and above from representation.

As well, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be the administrative tribunal for collective bargaining matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, and grievances related to collective bargaining would be addressed. The board would be required to take into account the unique operational reality of the RCMP. As members know, due to public safety and security considerations, RCMP regular members are not permitted to strike. This would continue under the new regime. Instead, the dispute resolution mechanism would be binding arbitration, which is consistent with other police forces across the country. That is the essence of the bill.

The bill is a targeted response to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling, and is meant to address its decision. As a government, we respect the Supreme Court and are committed to providing the RCMP with legislation that brings its labour regime in line with the Supreme Court ruling.

Let me provide a bit of background.

The bill is the end result of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada issued more than year ago in January 2015. At that time, the court ruled in the legal case cited as Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General). It found that some federal legislation and regulations relating to RCMP labour relations were unconstitutional because they prevented the formation of an independent RCMP employee organization. As such, they contravened the freedom of association guarantee enshrined in paragraph 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court gave the Government of Canada until January 16, 2016, or 12 months, to consider its options and respond with a labour relations framework that is compliant with the charter. The government took steps to bring the law into compliance with the Supreme Court ruling.

This past summer, the Treasury Board Secretariat engaged an independent consultant to survey regular members of the RCMP. The purpose of these consultations was to canvas the RCMP regular members' views on the 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 this survey, and more than 650 participated in town hall meetings. Their feedback was then compiled into a report, which was posted on the secretariat's website on December 7, 2015. This report was helpful in contributing to a legislative framework that would be in line with the Supreme Court's ruling.

We have taken a fair and reasonable approach to examining this complex matter. This necessitated careful consideration of the next steps, including consultation with regular members of the RCMP, and with the provinces and territories with RCMP police services agreements. Now, after more than a year of consideration and consultation with the RCMP regular members, and within the Canadian jurisdictions that contract for RCMP services, the government has acted on what it has learned.

The bill we have tabled today is the next step. It would give RCMP members and reservists greater independence from management and freedom of choice in labour relation matters. This is indeed a historical occasion for our national police, and I am proud to speak in support of this carefully considered piece of legislation.

The bill is very much in keeping with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations. Engaging in collective bargaining is a right long since exercised by other police forces in Canada, and we think it is time to extend that right to the RCMP.

I urge all members to support this bill and ensure that those Canadians who dedicate themselves to defending the law have their constitutional rights defended by the law.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley East. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise today to support Bill C-7.

It is an honour to participate in this debate and take a stand on behalf of the members and reservists of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Today's bill seeks to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years. RCMP members and reservists have been denied that right, despite the significant contribution they have made to our proud, strong, and free nation over the past 143 years.

This bill would remedy that situation. It is a clear and reasoned response to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on January 16, 2015. The court indicated that section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 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. The court also stated that the current RCMP labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence.

I thank the Supreme Court for this ruling, and I am pleased to support this bill today, which would give RCMP members and reservists freedom of choice and independence from management, while recognizing their unique operational reality.

This bill was carefully developed from the results of consultations with key stakeholders. The initial consultations were held with regular members of the RCMP. The next round of consultations were held with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that have police service agreements with the RCMP.

There are some important features in Bill C-7. First and foremost, it gives access to independent, binding arbitration when the bargaining dispute resolution process reaches an impasse. Members of the RCMP bargaining unit will not have the right to strike, which is in line with the practices of other police forces across the country. Those who participated in the online consultation expressed a strong preference for this provision.

The bill will also create a single, nation-wide bargaining unit composed of RCMP members appointed to a rank as well as reservists. In order to be certified, an RCMP bargaining agent must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. Once again, regular members have shown strong support for these provisions. The bill also provides for the exclusion of officers at the inspector level and above from representation.

Lastly, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will act as the administrative tribunal for matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, as well as grievances related to the provisions of the collective agreement.

This bill is in line with the government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country.

Consider, for example, Bill C-5, which repeals division 20 of Bill C-59, the bill to implement budget 2015, introduced in April of last year by the previous government.

That bill gave the government the power to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act was first introduced in 1977 in order to give public servants the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Guaranteeing collaborative efforts among the parties is crucial, as is increasing the capacity of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

Our government has made it abundantly clear that it will not adopt an approach that does not take into account the bargaining process between an employer and a group of employees who want to reach agreements on employment conditions.

By repealing these provisions of Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process. We believe in collective bargaining. Today's bill is a testament to our belief in that right.

We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations. Unfortunately, over the past few years, many basic labour rights have been undermined. Consider Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, for example, which will change how unions can be certified or decertified and will impose new financial reporting requirements on them.

Those bills were passed without the usual consultation process involving employers, unions, and the government, which was used during the reform of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As a result, it is now harder for unions and employers to bargain in good faith.

Instead we must ensure that workers are free to organize, bargain collectively in good faith, and ensure safe workplaces for themselves. To make that happen, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced a bill to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Bill C-4 restores the bargaining agent certification and decertification processes that were in place before June 16, 2015. Bill C-4 also amends the Income Tax Act to get rid of unnecessary requirements imposed on labour organizations and labour trusts with regard to releasing certain financial information.

As hon. members know, legislative measures are already in place to ensure that unions make that financial information available. Under section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, unions are required to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge, which makes these requirements to produce extra reports unnecessary.

In conclusion, the bill being introduced today is consistent with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations. Every other police force in Canada has had the right to engage in collective bargaining for quite some time. This bill respects that right, while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force.

It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they deserve. To that end, I am calling on all hon. members to show their support for RCMP members and reservists by voting in favour of this bill.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-7 as well. I concur with my colleagues who have just spoken in regard to the bill.

I had the opportunity, particularly in the Kamloops area at an earlier age, to work with RCMP members who actually came down to play hockey with us when I worked in that fair city a number of decades ago. The Sakaki family gave me my first opportunity to work in that community and the opportunity to play hockey with these RCMP officers as well.

Of course, that is what we are talking about here today: the RCMP officers who give their lives and work every day on behalf of Canadians to keep us safe.

I rise to express my concern regarding Bill C-7. The bill has some worthwhile and necessary provisions, as has been pointed out by some of my colleagues. However, the bill continues the Liberal tradition of bowing down to unions at the expense of democracy and increasing the power of unions at the expense of some of their members.

The Supreme Court's ruling makes it clear that the current regime must be updated to give RCMP members a greater voice in their workplace while continuing to to ensure public safety. However, certain provisions of the bill are thinly veiled attempts to pay unions back for their support of the Liberal Party in the last election. These are the parts of the bill that make it a bit undemocratic.

I stood in the House recently to speak against Bill C-4, the Liberals' first attempt to pay unions back for their election support. That bill was also deeply problematic. The timing of it could not have been more opportunistic in its attempt to make the government's own collective bargaining process easier at the expense of union members.

That bill also scaled back one of the most important rights of union members, the right to participate in a secret ballot on certification and decertification. We have seen that the government side is afraid of the words “secret ballot”. What are they afraid of? I would suggest they are afraid of democracy in this situation.

The combination of Bills C-4 and C-7 leaves RCMP members without a secret ballot vote on future union drives. The result is that a certification could occur through intimidation and undemocratic pressure tactics that are all too common with card check certifications. I believe strongly in giving workers the right to a vote that is free of intimidation prior to being forced to join, pay dues to, or be represented by a bargaining agent.

As I have said before, each hon. member in the chamber is here today because the residents of their constituency chose to give them the most personal thing they possess, their vote. As elected members of the House, our highest duty is to defend the democratic principles that brought us here. The secret ballot is the highest pillar of this process. It is difficult for me to believe that the Liberals have the nerve to argue that the public servants at the front line of Canadian safety do not deserve their democratic rights.

Our brave RCMP officers put our safety above theirs every day when they get up to go to work every morning and on every shift. Without them, we would not have the rule of law. Without them, many resolutions of the House would be worth less than the paper they are printed on. Without them, Canada would not be the free and safe society it is today.

Our RCMP stand up to criminals in some very dangerous situations. They rely on their fellow officers, their team, to have their backs. Bill C-7 would make our RCMP officers less safe by encouraging internal conflict within RCMP ranks. It creates a climate in which a union could pressure its members into signing their support. This really means that certain RCMP members would be pressuring others, creating tension and conflict while destroying trust.

Just as during election campaigns when candidates ask for the support of their friends and neighbours by going door to door, union representatives would be able to go from officer to officer to try to pressure them. As many of my hon. colleagues will know from their own campaign experience, while many people mean the support they promise, many people on the doorstep just want us to get off the porch or do not feel comfortable saying no to our face.

Without a secret ballot to guarantee the rights of public service workers, the potential for intimidation is disturbing. We all know that the potential for workers to be intimidated by their unions is very real. While this is serious for all workplaces, it is even more serious for a workplace where having a cohesive team can mean the difference between injury and safety, between life and death, as in the RCMP.

The Liberals have absolutely no good reason to get rid of this vital check. With the beginning of an important process for the RCMP, the Liberals are creating a problem that is easily avoided. The card check system allows for a workplace to be unionized without letting all employees have their say, and it could proceed with a significant portion of the workers having no idea that it was even going on.

The bill narrows the democratic legitimacy of an RCMP union and scales back the rights of our hard-working officers to select their representatives and determine their own fate. While the current regime must change to give our officers a greater voice in the workplace, it has to be done correctly.

As the bill currently stands, it sends a terrible signal to the men and women who keep us safe, a signal that the Government of Canada does not care about them. During the Conservatives' time in government, we consistently supported the RCMP, CSIS, and public safety agencies by modernizing legislation and increasing their budgets to ensure that these forces had the right tools to keep Canadians safe.

Right now, the RCMP is contracted to provide police services to eight provinces and over 150 communities. As the representative of the constituents of Brandon—Souris, I represent several such communities. I know first-hand the quality and professionalism that many RCMP officers of my riding bring to the job every day. We depend on them to keep us safe and are grateful to them for their service.

Not only would the officers in my riding have fewer democratic rights as a result of an unamended Bill C-7, but the communities that pay for their services would experience great hardship if labour costs dramatically increased. If our small communities cannot afford policing, nobody wins.

I echo my colleagues in supporting an amendment to this legislation that would explicitly allow RCMP members the right to vote on whether to unionize through a secret ballot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and for sharing her interest in officers' compensation.

The exercise concerns BillC-7, and we have a very limited amount of time as we had to ask for an extension because the deadline had passed. I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to explain in a little more detail the basis on which the court is interpreting the process that the RCMP will use to decide on certification and whether there will be a secret ballot. I hope she will excuse my legal and technical ignorance. The court's simply requested that by May 16 we have a provision that will allow the RCMP to proceed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too am glad to rise on Bill C-7.

Before I begin to share some of my comments and thoughts, I would note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

As I believe all of my colleagues have started their interventions on the bill, I would like to thank the RCMP who serve us every day. I am from British Columbia and have worked in rural communities. I do not think we can say enough of how important the RCMP are throughout our country, in terms on our safety and the work they do every day, which is sometimes dangerous. Also, there is the important pride and ceremony that they add to our lives.

Certainly as a nurse who worked in a small rural health centre, I remember many times when the RCMP would stop and check in. They wanted to make sure that we were okay. Of course, we were always very thankful, because it was a small community and we could have difficult patients. At a click of a button or a random stop-in, we knew that they cared about us and were there for us.

I also witnessed some of the horrific things they dealt with. They were at the scene of many accidents, and we would receive these patients in the emergency department. I understand some of the very difficult situations that they have to deal with.

I also want to make note of the danger. It was a little over a year ago in Kamloops, where I live now, when one of our RCMP members was doing a somewhat routine traffic stop. He was following someone who was refusing to stop. He got out of the car and was shot multiple times. Thankfully, he survived.

There is the very dangerous work they do every day, but, as important, I look at the pride when our RCMP members are dressed in the red serge and the tourists come and want their pictures taken. In Kamloops, whenever we require someone for ceremonial purposes, they are always there. We put in a request, and there is someone who is always willing to volunteer. Whether it be Remembrance Day, Canada Day, or special recognition ceremonies, they are there for us. I, like everyone in the House, want to thank them.

Broadly, we do support Bill C-7 and the intervention of the Supreme Court. For the most part, I think the government has done a reasonable job in putting a piece of legislation forward that reflects the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. It has some flexibility, which is very important for the unique role of the RCMP.

Having said “broadly”, I will talk about the one or two issues that we do have with the bill. However, there is a piece that I want to highlight that is perhaps less known, that no one has spent much talking about it, which is the Government Employees Compensation Act. There are some elements of the bill that I would like to reflect upon, as perhaps some people do not know what the situation is currently.

With regard to the Government Employees Compensation Act, what we call GECA, clause 40 of the bill would remove the exclusion of RCMP members from the application of the workers' compensation scheme. Clause 42 of the bill would amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act by repealing subsection 34(1). There is a lot of technical language, and I will explain what it means in a minute.

There is also a complementary amendment being made to GECA. The legislation would amend GECA to remove the exclusion of the RCMP members, and amend the RCMP compensation act to ensure full coverage under GECA for RCMP members. This would allow these members uninterrupted access to third-party adjudication, specialized medical and disability claims, and management services for the workers' compensation boards. It is an important element of the bill.

For those who might not know, although I think most people are very familiar with it, every province in Canada has what they call a workers' compensation board or, as we call it, employees' compensation. That is where firemen, loggers, or people in a desk job who are injured on the job or exposed to occupational health and safety hazards have the boards deal with issues of work-related injuries and disabilities.

Actually, until I became a member of Parliament, I never really thought about how our federal government employees were covered in terms of workers' compensation. For a number of years, there have been contracts with every compensation board across the country. People working at a fisheries office in British Columbia are covered by the system in British Columbia. Our Canada Revenue Agency employees working in Prince Edward Island have coverage through the Government Employees Compensation Act. The members of the RCMP have never had that support. They had an internal system that dealt with their issues.

As members might imagine, the workers' compensation boards have developed a lot of expertise in a number of different areas. This is expertise that could not be duplicated in a very small system, such as perhaps a small group within the RCMP. I will give a few examples. The boards have realized that prevention is significant and important, and there are amazing results in terms of prevention. Obviously, there are a lot of medical staff and programs and services, including occupational therapists and physiotherapists with ability and expertise in assessing workplace injuries. Some people would say that the RCMP is unique and would wonder whether this would work. I would argue that the boards deal with police services, provincially and municipally. They deal with firefighters, and a number of others. I think that the expertise that will come to bear is very important expertise.

The adjudication process, the third-party assessment, will be a much fairer system. This is a significant change. It is not a change that we have talked about in this House very often. We have not debated it as part of the legislation. However, I think it is important that we highlight the exclusion of the RCMP to the Government Employees Compensation Act. Not only did we work on it prior to this being introduced, but this is a piece of the legislation that we are very supportive of.

I need to conclude, but I have to talk about the secret ballot. It is ludicrous that the government members cannot even say the words “secret ballot”. The decision on whether to unionize or not is a difficult decision. It is a very personal decision. The RCMP members, in my conversations, have had a lot of struggle with that issue. The card-check method is very public. Someone who might be their friend puts a card in front of their face and wants them to sign it. Pressure comes to bear, and the pressure can come from either the employer or employees.

In my heart of hearts, I truly cannot understand why the government has moved away in terms of its secret ballot. It is not guaranteeing the right for the RCMP to have a secret ballot on an issue that is so divisive and personal. It is absolutely essential that this legislation allow what votes all over do.

My colleague earlier talked about card checks and whether we want a card check for our federal government system. That is the one area that I think Conservatives have particular concerns over. I do think there are some good elements of this bill that appropriately respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to support Bill C-7.

It is an honour to participate in this debate and take a stand on behalf of the members and reservists of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP.

Today's bill seeks to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years.

However, RCMP members and reservists have been denied that right, despite the significant contribution they have made to our proud, strong, and free nation over the past 143 years. My personal connection to this file dates back to almost the very beginning. My great-great-grandfather, Dr. Louis Paré, was the assistant chief surgeon for the Royal Northwest Mounted Police.

This bill will remedy that situation. It is a clear and reasoned response to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on January 16, 2015, which indicated that section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “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”.

The court stated, “The current RCMP labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence.”

I thank the Supreme Court for this ruling, and I am pleased to support this bill today, which would give RCMP members and reservists freedom of choice and independence from management, while recognizing their unique operational reality.

This bill was carefully developed from the results of consultations held with key stakeholders. The initial consultations were held with regular members of the RCMP. The next round of consultations were held with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that have police service agreements with the RCMP.

There are some important features in Bill C-7. First and foremost, it gives access to independent, binding arbitration when the bargaining dispute resolution process reaches an impasse.

Members of the RCMP bargaining unit will not have the right to strike, which is in line with the practices of other police forces across the country. Those who participated in the online consultation expressed a strong preference for this provision.

The bill will also create a single, nation-wide bargaining unit composed of RCMP members appointed to a rank as well as reservists. In order to be certified, an RCMP bargaining agent must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members.

Once again, regular members have shown strong support for these provisions. The bill also provides for the exclusion of officers at the inspector level and above from representation.

Lastly, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will act as the administrative tribunal for matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, as well as grievances related to the provisions of the collective agreement.

This bill is in line with the government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour rights in this country. Consider, for example, Bill C-5, which repeals division 20 of Bill C-59, the bill to implement budget 2015, introduced in April of last year by the previous government. That bill gave the government the power to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act was first introduced in 1977 in order to give public servants the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Guaranteeing collaborative efforts between the parties is crucial, as is increasing the capacity of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

Our government has made it abundantly clear that it will not adopt an approach that does not take into account the bargaining process between an employer and a group of employees who want to reach agreements on employment conditions.

By repealing these provisions of Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process. We believe in collective bargaining. Today's bill is a testament to our belief in that right. We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations. Unfortunately, over the past few years, many basic labour rights have been undermined.

Consider Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which will change how unions can be certified or decertified and impose new financial reporting requirements on them.

Those bills were passed absent any of the usual consultation involving employers, unions, and the government, which took place during the Public Service Staff Relations Act reform.

As a result, it is now harder for unions and employers to bargain effectively in good faith. We must ensure that workers are free to organize, bargain collectively in good faith, and ensure safe workplaces for themselves.

To make that happen, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced a bill to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Bill C-4 restores the bargaining agent certification and decertification processes that were in place before June 16, 2015.

Bill C-4 also amends the Income Tax Act, in order to get rid of unnecessary requirements imposed on labour organizations and labour trusts with regard to filing certain financial information.

As hon. members know, legislative measures are already in place to ensure that unions make that financial information available. Under section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, unions are required to provide financial statements to their members on request and free of charge, which makes these requirements to produce extra reports unnecessary.

The bill being introduced today is consistent with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations. Every other police force in Canada has had the right to engage in collective bargaining for quite some time.

This bill respects that right, while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force. It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they deserve.

To that end, I am calling on all hon. members to show their support for RCMP members and reservists by voting in favour of this bill.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

I thank the House for this opportunity to explain why Bill C-7 is a constructive and responsible development in federal labour relations.

If passed, this legislation 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 his primary mandate the representation of RCMP members; the exclusion of officers, those of inspector rank and above, from representation; and the designation of the renamed federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board as the administrative tribunal for matters relating to the RCMP bargaining unit as well as grievances related to the collective agreement, should one be affected.

The bill would provide for binding arbitration as the means to resolve impasses, in light of the essential nature of the work performed by the RCMP.

As a 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 this bill would create marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the RCMP. For the first time, RCMP members and reservists would have the same constitutional rights as other Canadians concerning collective bargaining. It is time the RCMP had the opportunity to decide whether to exercise these rights itself.

Our national mounted police have a storied past in Canada in the settlement and development of our country and in keeping peace across the land for almost a century and a half. Since its beginning in 1873, when the act establishing the North-West Mounted Police was introduced in the House by then prime minister John A. Macdonald, the RCMP has been an integral part of our history, indeed our culture. From the 1874 march west from Fort Dufferin in Manitoba, to policing the Klondike gold rush, to the St. Roch's passage through the Northwest Passage, to the vital roles in World War I and World War II, the RCMP has played instrumental roles in Canadian history.

Yet despite their long history, this legislation would be the first time these employees would have the right to freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining. This is a right guaranteed to all Canadians by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a right the RCMP defends and should also enjoy.

Members of the RCMP work with the goal of serving Canada and protecting Canadians. They are the people who protect the Governor General, the prime minister and other ministers of the crown, visiting royalty and dignitaries, and diplomatic missions. They are our neighbours, who participate in international policing efforts, safeguard the integrity of our borders, and provide counterterrorism and domestic security. They are the Canadians who enforce our federal laws against commercial crime, counterfeiting, drug trafficking, and organized crime.

This legislation would help support those who support us.

The bill also acknowledges the importance of collective bargaining in the development of Canadian society. Since it was officially recognized in 1944, collective bargaining has helped lift many Canadians out of economic insecurity and poverty. Working Canadians in both English and French Canada have a long tradition of organizing themselves to negotiate for better working conditions and more secure lives for themselves and their families. Their struggles and triumphs have been essential to Canada's development.

Our government recognizes that collective bargaining and Canadians' fundamental freedoms are vital to a healthy democracy in which people can pursue their livelihoods with a sense of fairness, security, and professionalism.

We promised to restore fair and balanced laws that acknowledge the importance of unions in Canada. That is what we have done, and that is what this legislation would continue to do.

In December, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. These two bills amended the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed before June 16, 2015.

The government has also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-59, which would have provided the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process. The bill we are considering today, which recognizes the right to collective bargaining for RCMP members and reservists, is another example of our commitment to fair and balanced labour relations.

Fair labour relations need to be available to the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for us. This legislation would do that, and it demonstrates our respect for fundamental liberties and the values at the heart of our democracy.

In 1873, parliamentarians like us voted in this House to establish the North-West Mounted Police. Today, we are here at the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the RCMP. We are considering whether, 143 years later, the men and women in our national police force should have the same fundamental freedoms as so many other Canadians enjoy.

I urge all members to support the bill that would give them those freedoms, and to vote with us to help those who help others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Carleton for his comments, and especially for confirming that Bill C-7 itself is reasonable, fair, and constructive, and we do look forward to comments and proposals at the committee level.

The member used most of his time to talk about Bill C-4 and to talk about Bill C-525, which his government put forward. I would like to remind the member that there was a huge amount of controversy and comment that Bill C-525 was pushed through without consultation, in contrast to Bill C-7, in which there was extensive consultation. That is one point I want to make before I get to my question.

The second is this. If the member is so proud of Bill C-525, which would require a mandatory vote, why did the previous government hide the report that its very own department tabled, showing that a mandatory vote is detrimental to labour relations in comparison to the card check method. The card check method does enable the public service members to indicate their preference around being represented by an employee organization.

I find it stunning, given that the Conservatives hid the evidence that suggested their bill was a bad one, and they never consulted on it, that this would be the key thing that the member would want to push for in this House. It just defies belief.

We have the NDP saying the card check is the only—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to contribute to the discussion on 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. This act would deal with the right of our brave men and women of the red serge to bargain collectively.

This bill is a response to the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter last winter. The court gave the government a year from January 15 to implement a new collective bargaining regime for the RCMP. That deadline has since been extended. The ruling also indicated that it was the right of RCMP members to unionize based on paragraph 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it found that the existing staff relations representative program was an insufficient guarantee of that freedom of association.

I am generally satisfied with the contents of the bill itself. Let me explain why.

First, the bill would not require the RCMP to unionize. It creates a framework based on the existing certification laws under the public service employment legislation, whereby RCMP members can, if they so choose, form a union.

Furthermore, it would create certain protections that are necessary in light of the unique nature of employment within a policing organization. First, a prospective union must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. It cannot be affiliated with another bargaining agent or association that does not have that as its primary purpose, and it cannot be certified to represent any other group of employees. In other words, it would be an organization-wide bargaining unit represented by a single bargaining agent that would exclusively serve RCMP members and no other group of employees within the federal government. That is important, because if RCMP members choose to unionize, that union should be of RCMP members, by RCMP members, and for RCMP members for it to be truly representative and appropriate for a police force.

I am very proud of the police force that we have serving nationwide. The RCMP headquarters is here in Ottawa, close to my home. I am also very proud that Conservatives introduced legislation to help the RCMP do its job better and to keep our streets safe from crime and terrorism.

I should go on, though, to express my satisfaction with certain other limits that exist within this proposed legislation so that we can protect the work of the national police force. For example, policies on law enforcement techniques, transfers, appointments, promotions, disciplinary actions against RCMP members, and an RCMP officer's duty, dress, equipment, and medals are rightly left outside of the collective bargaining process and managed within the context of the RCMP Act. This bill would do that.

Next, the bill would, rightly, increase the size of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board from 10 to 12 members and insist that the two additional members have intimate knowledge of policing, so that when matters related to employment and labour relations within the RCMP come before the board, policing expertise will be found around the table. That is a reasonable proposal.

Furthermore, as with most police organizations across the country, under this legislation there will be no right to strike, for obvious reasons, because we need to protect our streets. Even in the event of a dispute or an impasse in labour relations, we cannot afford to have our officers off the street and on strike. The government has rightly recognized this fact and embedded that reality in the bill itself.

The bill itself is reasonable and fair. However, it cannot be looked at in isolation. Simultaneous to this bill, our House and our Parliament are debating and discussing another bill that would strip the democratic rights of federally regulated workers across the country.

Bill C-4 would remove the right of a secret ballot vote from federally regulated workers in matters of certification. It is important to be clear on what this means. It means that a union could take over a federally regulated workforce without there being a vote by the members who work in that workplace. In other words, thousands of employees from any number of federal employers could be forced to pay dues to and be represented by a union for which they never had a chance to cast a vote. This is particularly alarming when it relates to the RCMP, an organization comprised of members who put their lives on the line each and every day, in part to defend our democratic way of life. Therefore, it is a great irony that members of the RCMP, of all groups of employees, would be deprived the most basic democratic right, which is the right to vote in secret on whether to certify a union.

The alternative to a secret ballot is a process called “card check”, where those people who want to take over a workplace and form a union go around with a petition and ask people to sign it. Then when they get 50% plus one of the employees to sign on, the board recognizes a majority and declares the union to be a bargaining agent. The obvious problem with that is intimidation. When workers have to put their names down on paper for all eyes to see, they risk being pressured unduly into favouring one side or another. It would be the equivalent of holding our national elections by a show of hands. Imagine that? The government said that our previous Bill C-525, which empowered workers with a secret ballot, was undemocratic.

The government is in the process of trying to change our electoral system. I wonder if the Liberals are simultaneously considering taking away the secret ballot from our general elections and replacing it with some sort of petition, or show of hands, or a card check as it is called. The parliamentary secretary earlier cited a report from the ministry of employment, showing the statistical reality that if workers were given the right to vote, they were less inclined to choose unionization. In other words, unions are not formed at as high a rate when people are given a chance to vote on the question as they are when people are forced to sign a card-check petition.

The government's problem is with the outcome. The government might not be happy that when workers are given the choice through a democratic vote, they opt not to unionize. However, that is the choice of the workers not the choice of the government. It is obvious that rates of certification would go up if those people doing the certifying were able to intimidate those they were trying to certify. Naturally, if they can show up on the doorsteps of employees at 10 p.m., ask them to sign a form and leave implied consequences for failing to do so, it is not surprising that unions are able to certify at higher rates than when the workers are given a chance to go into a voting booth and mark a secret ballot, exercising their true prerogative without anybody looking over their shoulders. However, that is not evidence of why we should take away their right to vote.

I was not particularly thrilled with the results of the last federal election, but I would never propose taking away the rights of Canadian voters to cast their ballot in secret as a result. It is their choice on how they vote. I could probably produce some sort of study to show that in some aspect of Canadian life voters would cast a ballot differently if they were given a chance to vote secretly on the matter. That is not a reason to take away the secret ballot.

The fact that workers or anyone votes differently when they have the right to do so secretly than they would if they were being watched by an authority figure is the very reason we need secret ballots. That is precisely the reason they were created, and they are a basic foundation not only of workplace democracy, but of Canadian democracy.

I would call on the government to recognize that fact and amend the bill to ensure the RCMP members will not be unionized without the right to vote on that unionization. In fact, Canadians agree with the right of secret ballot. It is basically in our democratic DNA. Secret ballot voting to certify union is not new or controversial. Ontario requires it. British Columbia requires it. Both of these provinces are currently represented by Liberal governments. Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador also require secret ballots and none of them is represented by the Conservative Party.

In administrations run by the NDP, the Liberals, the Saskatchewan Party, and others, we have secret ballot certifications in provincially regulated workplaces right across the country. In Quebec, Canada's second most unionized province, there is enormous support for secret ballot votes on certification.

One poll in August 2009 found that 71% of Quebeckers said that secret ballots should be required as a way of getting union certification. In the United States, polls have shown that 80% of people believe a secret ballot should be required for a union to form. Therefore, it cannot simply be seen south of the border as a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is an issue that unites basically all North American public opinion in a vast majority who favour a secret ballot vote before a union can certify a workplace.

I would further identify the fact that if RCMP members are forced to join a particular union without having a chance to vote, that union will have difficulty establishing itself as a legitimate representative for the workers for which it will become the bargaining unit.

I also have warned the government of a political problem, and that is the reality that if it does deny employees in the RCMP the ability to conduct a secret ballot vote on unionization, it could very well learn of stories of intimidation within the workplace and those stories will reflect badly on the government's decision to strip that basic right from RCMP members.

I ask the government to consider an amendment to the legislation which would preserve the existing secret ballot formula that is found in public service labour relations legislation and ensure that the men and women who put on the uniform of the RCMP are given that basic human right in an eventual and inevitable certification drive. If they should select to unionize through that mechanism of a vote, then we, nationwide, should respect the result of that vote and respect the legitimacy of the union that it produces.

This is not a radical concept. We have five provinces in the country where provincially regulated workplaces certify their unions through secret ballot voting. It is a basic tenet of democracy.

Deep down I think members of the Liberal government understand and agree with that, and I will tell members why.

I have listened to all of the Liberals' comments with respect to their proposed repeal of Bill C-525, which is the bill the Conservative government passed to create secret ballot voting rights. However, the two words they never say when they are talking about that bill are “secret ballot”. They say that bill, which is now law, makes certification harder and decertification easier, but they do not say how. They say that it lowers unionization rates, but they do not say why. The bill really only does one thing. It replaces a card-check petition with a secret ballot vote. However, members on the government side can never actually bring themselves to utter those two words “secret ballot”.

Why? Because I think they know that if they were to openly argue against the right to vote for federally regulated workers on the grounds that it was not consistent with the government's view of labour relations, they would be laughed out of any room in our country. Everybody, coast to coast, acknowledges that democratic decision making has to happen through a secret ballot.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, you are chosen by secret ballot. We choose representation for our very House through a secret ballot vote. Every person in this room has a job today because they were elected by secret ballot. In fact, most unions elect their representatives through a secret ballot vote when they are certified. Everybody acknowledges that decisions of this magnitude made by a group of employees in a workplace should be done through a secret ballot, unless one has an ideological motivation to override the real will of the working people and to impose an outcome on them.

I think members will find that, in reality, those who are pushing for an end to secret ballot voting within the workplace on matters of unionization are those who are unhappy with the outcome that the secret ballot democratic vote would produce, which is no excuse. One cannot oppose democracy simply because one does not like the outcome to which it leads.

This is why we, as official opposition, congratulate the government for Bill C-7 in its own right, as a fair and balanced approach to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling on collective bargaining in the RCMP. However, I would ask that the bill be made better through an amendment that would allow the brave men and women who wear the RCMP uniform to be the masters of their own destiny by giving them the right to vote.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague across the way wax eloquently about his love and admiration for the RCMP, yet when he referred to the uniform, he called it the red uniform and that hat. It is called the red serge and it is a campaign hat. It is a true Canadian icon and represents Canada.

The member opposite also said that the Conservative Party is against unions. I have been a member of five unions in my lifetime and absolutely see the importance of them in the workforce. We also see the importance of allowing employees to have a say without fear of repercussion.

Today, in the RCMP, we are hearing about harassment. We are also hearing that over 33% of the workforce is facing and suffering from PTSD and is fearful of coming forward with that.

Would it not behoove the government and the member opposite to support our amendment allowing a secret ballot in this Bill C-7?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in this place to share some thoughts on yet another very important piece of legislation, something that I suspect people should be supportive of.

I have had the opportunity on previous occasions to address different types of legislation. I would recommend that my colleagues, no matter what side of the House they are on, take into consideration that this legislation is before us because there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision that was made, and as a result legislation was then required. I would argue that this type of legislation could have, and possibly should have, been introduced long ago, even prior to the last federal election. I think it would have been nice to have had something in place.

I am very happy with the approach that this government has taken in addressing legislation, in particular with some of the labour issues. I truly believe that we can do much more in terms of improving the quality of the relationship between labour and management, not just within the private sector, but also the public sector.

A couple of weeks ago, I met a member of the public union at a local restaurant. He shared with me a questionnaire that was circulated among the civil service. It was discouraging. The questionnaire results were based, I believe from 2014. The results were very disturbing, in the sense that there is a high level of dissatisfaction, of mistrust. There is this sense that the Government of Canada was not listening to the needs of Canada's public service, or at the very least was not demonstrating respect for our civil service.

There has been a change in attitude since the last federal election. We have seen our new Prime Minister and the Canadian government take a different approach in dealing with our civil service, or unions in general. We recognize the valuable contributions they make to our society. This is ultimately recognized, not only here in terms of the citizenry of our country, but also in other jurisdictions in the world that have recognized the professionalism throughout our public service.

I tried to assure my constituent when he was sharing these very poor results from 2014 that there is a new attitude in Ottawa, in terms of appreciation and gratitude for the phenomenal work that our civil service puts in.

When I look at the legislation before us today, it is an extension of other areas in which the government is trying to to demonstrate that things have changed. There was a four-month extension that was given.

I listened to the comments, whether they were from Conservative critic or the NDP member of Parliament from Elmwood—Transcona, about wanting to see changes. I have good news for them. The good news is that we within government want to see change in the way in which our standing committees themselves operate. If the opposition takes the gesture that is coming right from the Prime Minister and the cabinet, and in essence from the government benches, I would suggest that we will see amendments brought forward, not only potentially to Bill C-7, but to other pieces of legislation.

I had the opportunity to serve over 20 years in opposition, and I have often had a sense of frustration when I wanted to see amendments brought forward, and for whatever reason—usually because they came from the wrong side of the committee—opposition amendments were just completely outright rejected.

I am suggesting, as have other colleagues, that there is a new open attitude toward the way in which committees and standing committees could be working into the future.

I tend to agree with the Prime Minister that a lot of the heavy lifting and the hard work can in fact be done in our committees. Therefore, when the member for Elmwood—Transcona talks about some of the ways he believes we have fallen short on the legislation, let me suggest for him and for all members—it does not matter whether they are even on the opposition benches, so even for my colleagues on the government benches—that if they are prepared to do the work and the consultation and share their ideas in a proactive fashion, in a progressive manner, they should not be surprised to see their amendments actually accepted and ultimately improve the legislation.

That could happen with Bill C-7 or any other piece of legislation, but the onus and the responsibility in good part is on those who are sitting on the committee. At the end of the day, if we are passing legislation through second reading and a member has some thoughts and some ideas that could improve the legislation, the government is open to listening to them. Why would we not approve, or at the very least consider, amendments that would improve the quality of the legislation itself? All Canadians would benefit from that. The Prime Minister has spoken out on this. We want to see more effective and functional standing committees that will ultimately contribute to improving the system.

I recognize, in the hour or hour and a half in which we have had the opportunity to debate this issue, that there were a number of members who talked about the importance of amendments. Let me qualify that by saying—and the parliamentary secretary in particular made reference to a fairly extensive survey where literally thousands of RCMP officers were consulted and feedback was solicited, and we received a considerable amount of information—that we understand what is being asked of the government in coming up with the legislation as to what they would like to see in the legislation. I will make more reference to that a little later in my comments.

We have to look at amendments to legislation from a holistic approach, everything from the legislation itself and the impact an amendment would have on the legislation, to what degree we are hearing from the different stakeholders and the witnesses who ultimately appear before a committee.

One of the things I really enjoy, coming from a provincial legislature to the House of Commons, is the degree to which standing committees have the ability to bring experts from across the country to provide their input on legislation—and on other matters, but specifically on legislation.

When the bill ultimately goes to committee, we will hear from experts from virtually all regions of our great nation, coming forward, sharing their thoughts, and I suspect from a combination of what they, opposition members, and government members are saying, that we might actually see some amendments brought forward.

I decided to take some time to emphasize the importance of this because there is a time limit. I do believe there is some merit to see the bill ultimately pass in a timely fashion.

As has been pointed out, the Supreme Court of Canada made its decision in January 2015. It said we needed to change the law to enable our RCMP, a wonderful national institution, to unionize if it chose to do so.

We were given a year. We had to apply for that four-month extension. From a court procedural sense, we need to speed up the process if we can. However, it should not be only about the perspective of the court. Many members of our RCMP have been anxiously awaiting this. The sooner we put this in place, then the sooner we would be allowing those fine members, who have served us so well over the years, to do what they would like to do.

There are two good reasons why I would recommend to my colleagues, no matter what side of the House they sit on, that they allow this legislation to go to committee. The sooner it gets to committee, the more opportunity the committee will have to deal with the many different issues that have been raised so far in the debate. Ultimately it will come back from the committee, and looking at the actual number of sitting days and the government's proposed legislative agenda, we see that time is a scarce commodity in this chamber. We could do a great service by recognizing the value of getting the bill to committee stage.

A number of thoughts came to my mind while I was listening to the Conservative critic, and I wanted to pose a question for him in regard to those thoughts. Some of his remarks were a bit off topic, for example, when he referenced debt and deficit that he attributes to Liberal prime ministers. If he has been listening closely to what the government has been saying, he is probably finding it intellectually challenging as to why he might stay on that side, given the number of times he has quoted Liberal prime ministers. Rather than adding more comment on that particular issue at this time, I will wait until we get the opportunity during budget debate. Suffice it to say that, when the member referenced the deficit, I would suggest that the Conservatives had a huge deficit and debt issue, far exceeding any Liberal administration since Confederation.

The member also made reference to Bill C-4 as if it were bad legislation. I am from Winnipeg, and maybe it is because Winnipeg faced the general strike of 1919 that I tend to differ with the Conservative Party. I recognize the valuable role that unions play in society, both today and into the future, but the Conservative Party in particular does not recognize this. We saw that with respect to the questions the member put forward and his statements while addressing Bill C-7. The member was critical of Bill C-4, but he does not recognize that Bill C-4 would improve Canada's labour legislation, just like the bill we have before us today. If passed, Bill C-7 would improve the labour situation here in Canada.

Bill C-4 is not the government's first priority piece of legislation. Our first priority was Bill C-2, which concerned our tax break for the middle class. Bill C-4 is a priority because the Conservatives changed labour legislation to the detriment of the union movement in Canada. That particular piece of legislation was brought in to rectify a wrong that the Conservatives had put in place.

That is the reason why I suggested earlier that the Conservatives have a different approach to dealing with labour legislation, which has ultimately led to what we have in Bill C-7 today. They had eight or nine months to deal with the legislation in some form or another. They have talked a lot about the secret ballot. They had the opportunity to put that into the legislation if they were prepared to bring it forward back then. However, it was a low priority, even though the Supreme Court of Canada had ultimately made a ruling. I would suggest that the Conservatives were negligent on this file and, as a result, that has created a time crunch, and I hope and I trust that all members will recognize that.

Before I get into more of the details of the legislation itself, I did want to pick up on a couple of important points. The most important one is that this legislation was brought forward to deal and assist with a free bargaining process for our RCMP officers. I do not think that enough could be said about the incredible work that our RCMP officers do from coast to coast to coast. The RCMP is one of those great Canadian institutions from which Canadians as a whole get a great sense of pride, especially when we see the traditional red uniform with the hat. It is something I believe embodies a great sense of pride for Canadians. It is an iconic institution that is recognized around the world as one of the greatest police forces of modern time. I believe we should all pay tribute to the fantastic work that the RCMP does.

We need to also recognize that this is not the first time that a police or law enforcement agency is looking at the possibility of forming a union. We have had police unions in Canada dating back almost 100 years, so Canadians do not need to be fearful of a union, as some members on the other side might try to espouse. There is a great deal of benefit to recognizing the valuable role unions have played in police forces in Canada to date. It is not as if we are going into an area that has never been explored in the past. The opportunity for the RCMP to unionize is very real, and I suspect it will likely happen. However, at the end of the day, it is the RCMP that will ultimately make that decision. The important thing to recognize is its right to have a collective bargaining regime. That was the essence of the ruling that was made by the Supreme Court.

I will highlight this fact. In that massive consultation and surveying that was done with RCMP officers, there were a couple of points that need to be recognized. One was that there was strong support for a union throughout all of those consultations and so forth. There was also strong support for a single national bargaining unit, and the idea of binding arbitration versus the ability to strike.

With those very few words, I trust and hope there will be a few questions.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for standing up for the efforts that Liberals are taking to move collective bargaining forward through the work on Bill C-7, and the work we did on Bill C-4 previous to this.

Bill C-7 is respecting the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, and reflects the government's consultations with 9,000 RCMP regular members via a survey and 655 town hall meetings. The timing on this has been set by the Supreme Court, which gives Parliament until May 17 to respond to its ruling. Could the hon. member please reflect on the combination that we now have in front of us, Bill C-4 and Bill C-7, in strengthening Canada's collective bargaining process?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-7 and contribute to the debate on the bill.

I will start by echoing the thanks that other members have offered today to the men and women in the RCMP for their service to the country. What better way to thank them than to grant them the long overdue right to bargain collectively with their employer. It is one that unfortunately took the Supreme Court to weigh in on for it to be granted. Nevertheless, we have come to a place where we can now recognize that right. It is a good thing for the country. We in the NDP are concerned to make the bill the best it can be and to honour the right to bargain collectively to the maximum possible extent.

This issue has became personal for me. It came up while I was canvassing during the last election. I knocked on the door of an RCMP member who lives in my riding. He asked what I thought about this. Of course, intellectually, I have been on the side of labour and workers' rights all my life, but this was a guy who was working for the RCMP was frustrated about things that were happening in his workplace, which he thought could be going better. He did not feel there were meaningful avenues for RCMP members to complain within the organization that would really be heard, because he felt that management ultimately controlled all of those processes. He felt that collective bargaining was the way to start getting those concerns addressed.

Although he mentioned pay and benefits, it was interesting that a lot of the concerns he raised were not about that. I certainly got the impression, first and foremost, that what he and many of his fellow members were looking for in collective bargaining was the ability to address workplace safety and health issues. As we have heard from some RCMP members, some of it had to do with harassment within the force. For others it was staffing ratios and how many officers are responding to calls, particularly in remote and northern communities, and what that means for the safety of RCMP members who do respond alone.

The impression I got that day is echoed by the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, which says, “Unfortunately the way it stands, this bill is flawed by removing vital matters from the bargaining table such as disciplinary measures and allocation of resources”.

I take it from that that the conversation I had during the election with the RCMP member in my riding was representative of at least some, and perhaps many, RCMP members across the country. Some have already organized within a voluntary association to say that what they really want to weigh in on at the bargaining table, aside from pay and benefits, is their work conditions and the threats to their safety that sometimes arise because of decisions made by management about who will respond to what calls and in what way.

It would be a mistake for the government not to see this as an opportunity and to just minimally satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Court decision, but rather to create a meaningful mechanism by which RCMP members who have the experience on the ground, those who are getting to see first-hand the way policies designed by management are playing out for individual officers across the country, to weigh in on these kinds of decisions.

The Supreme Court ruling was quite clear. We all know in this chamber that simply being able to discuss something at the bargaining table is no guarantee that any particular conclusion will be drawn or that management will not maintain its prerogative with respect to a particular issue.

As we have talked about collective bargaining and what should and should not be included under the purview of bargaining, I think it would be is helpful to refer to some of what the Supreme Court said in its decision about bargaining, what its intent is and why it matters.

I will to quote at length from the decision. It states:

As social beings, our freedom to act with others is a primary condition of community life, human progress and civilized society. Through association, individuals have been able to participate in determining and controlling the immediate circumstances of their lives, and the rules, mores and principles which govern the communities in which they live.

Freedom of association is most essential in those circumstances where the individual is liable to be prejudiced by the actions of some larger and more powerful entity, like the government or an employer.

In this case, it is both.

The decision continues with:

Association has always been the means through which political, cultural and racial minorities, religious groups and workers have sought to attain their purposes and fulfill their aspirations; it has enabled those who would otherwise be vulnerable and ineffective to meet on more equal terms the power and strength of those with whom their interests interact and, perhaps, conflict.

This, I think, is what we are hearing from RCMP members. It is a strong feeling that the means at their disposal to address issues in their workplace are ineffective, when we hear the sense of frustration that comes with feeling vulnerable and not having a fair process through which to challenge a person or an entity much more powerful than oneself.

I would say that no small part of what RCMP members sought to achieve through this litigation process, which ultimately terminated in the Supreme Court ruling that they do have a right to collective bargaining, was the freedom to pursue their goals within the workplace. We know that some of the most important goals are about workplace safety and health and less about pay and benefits.

The Supreme Court recognized in its decision that this ability is what makes collective bargaining important. It said, for instance, that “...a process of collective bargaining will not be meaningful if it denies employees the power to pursue their goals.”

The Supreme Court continues with:

The balance necessary to ensure the meaningful pursuit of workplace goals can be disrupted in many ways. Laws and regulations may restrict the subjects that can be discussed, or impose arbitrary outcomes.

I think that is certainly what we are seeing with respect to some issues in the bill before us. A law—in this case, Bill C-7—would restrict the freedom of RCMP members to be able to pursue their goals within collective bargaining. That is why we in the NDP find some of the exclusions so concerning. The Supreme Court has rightly said that what makes collective bargaining important is the freedom for employees to be able to pursue their own goals that they determine within the workplace.

We have all heard stories about RCMP members responding to calls alone in remote or northern communities and the threat to their safety and security that such a situation poses. We have heard some of the debates around that. We have heard stories recently in the news about persistent allegations of sexual harassment and the powerlessness that some RCMP members feel in being able to raise those complaints, so I can understand why they would like to be able to weigh in on those issues and why they feel that a process that puts them at the table as an equal partner in negotiating the way that these issues are going to be dealt with is the way that they feel it is best done, and that yet another regime whereby the government, along with the commissioner, decides how those things are going to be decided may, in the opinion of some members, not be adequate.

Certainly, given that collective bargaining has been prohibited in one way, shape, or form in the RCMP since 1918, there have been a lot of opportunities for government-led or commissioner-led solutions to address these kinds of persistent problems within the RCMP, yet we deal with them today. We have a new government now that is going to try in its own way to deal with those things.

Our modest proposal is that perhaps the time has come to let employees in at the ground level at the table as an equal in bargaining about how some of these issues are going to be dealt with.

Of course, that does not guarantee any particular outcome. It does not mean that the employees are going to be successful at the table. It is just to say that it makes sense to let them raise those issues at the bargaining table if they see them as important issues, and we know from some members that they do.

Why not let them raise those issues at the table and make a determination, based on a concrete proposal, on whether or not what they are saying makes sense and whether it is consistent with what we have heard is the unique nature of the RCMP as a national police force? Let that be decided once the proposals are on the table, instead of prejudging the issue and saying that any proposals that the members of the RCMP could possibly come up with are somehow not going to be true to the unique nature of the RCMP as a national police force.

I submit that many members of the RCMP—frankly, most, if not all—understand the nature of the workplace that they work in, are just as committed to the RCMP as a national police force, are just as committed to the important role that the RCMP plays within Canada, and are interested in advancing solutions that would be in the interests, yes, of themselves but also of the RCMP, which I do not think need be seen as mutually exclusive. What we are proposing is simply that some of these exclusions do not make a lot of sense, or, if they do, we have not yet heard why they do.

We have heard some arguments about timeliness. We have heard that we are in a rush to get the bill through because we only have until May 16. I submit that is not a real reason. That is something that reasonable people can deal with either by simply omitting those exclusions or, if that is legislatively complex because of some of the frameworks that are already in place, by simply putting a timeline on when agreements made may supersede whatever is currently in place legislatively. These are things that can be worked out at committee. I am hopeful that the government will listen and that we might be able to reduce the number of exclusions that are in this bill through the committee stage, which is why we will be voting to send this bill to committee. It is not because it is perfect but because we need a bill that recognizes the right of RCMP members to bargain collectively, and we are anxious for the opportunity to submit proposals as to how we might improve this particular piece of legislation.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that the Supreme Court also said that limits can reasonably be imposed on collective bargaining. This is something that my Conservative colleague was alluding to earlier. The Supreme Court said:

Section 1 of the Charter permits Parliament to enact laws that limit Charter rights if it establishes that the limits are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This requires that the objective of the measure be pressing and substantial, and that the means by which the objective is furthered be proportionate, i.e. that the means are rationally connected to the law's objective, minimally impair the...right, and are proportionate in effect.

The government argued—at court, not in the House today—that the point of denying RCMP members the right to collective bargaining was to “... maintain and enhance public confidence in the neutrality, stability and reliability of the RCMP by providing a police force that is independent and objective.”

I note that the Supreme Court found that argument unsatisfactory, but it seems to me that similar arguments are really what are underpinning the exclusions in Bill C-7 of certain matters from the bargaining process. While denying collective bargaining altogether is not the same as excluding certain matters from bargaining, it is worth considering the Supreme Court's response to the government's argument in court:

First, it is not apparent how an exclusion from a statutorily protected collective bargaining process ensures the neutrality, stability or even reliability. The exclusion of RCMP members from the federal public service collective bargaining regime...fostered, rather than inhibited, dissatisfaction and unrest within the RCMP.

Furthermore,

...it is not established that permitting meaningful collective bargaining for RCMP members will disrupt the stability of the police force or affect the public's perception of its neutrality. The government offered no persuasive evidence to that effect. Empirical research tends to show the opposite, as does provincial experience with unionized police forces....

I would put to the House today that the same is true, mutatis mutandis, of the exclusions to bargaining contained in Bill C-7. Those were arguments having to do with not giving the RCMP the right to bargain collectively at all. However, we could say that a similar test really needs to be applied to each exclusion. It is not clear to me that there is any great purpose served by excluding some important issues from the bargaining process, and I would really like to hear from government members with respect to these exclusions.

Without guaranteeing any particular outcome if employees brought a proposal about staffing guidelines or, if they did, that they would be successful in the process, how would excluding, say, staffing ratios from the collective bargaining regime make the RCMP more reliable, more neutral, or more stable? We just have not heard the argument for the necessity of these things.

We heard a vague comment earlier from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board that there are certain things that have just always been within the purview of the commissioner and that there is a managerial prerogative there.

I would say that begs the question. What is at issue is what will be under the managerial prerogative. That would be all well and good, perhaps, if we were making an argument in court where the law was established, but as legislators in the House, it will be for us to decide what is within the purview of management's prerogative. That is what we are contesting here today.

We have a pretty good test coming out of the Supreme Court decision. It is the same test that would apply to whether RCMP members should have the right to bargain collectively overall. It could be applied to each exclusion to ask for arguments and evidence that the RCMP would be jeopardized as an institution if these things were submitted to bargaining.

That is a hard case to make, and I think it is particularly hard to make in light of the fact that this legislation would not provide a right to strike. Disagreements would go to binding arbitration, and in their deliberations the arbitrators would be instructed to take into account the unique role of the RCMP as a national police force.

If proposals were put on the table by RCMP members at bargaining, it is clear through Bill C-7 that whatever could not be resolved, presumably because RCMP management felt that those proposals were unreasonable, would go to arbitration. As part of their mandate, arbitrators would have to consider whether those proposals respected the unique role of the RCMP as a national police force, and also, by implication, whether any of those proposals would somehow be a threat to the stability, neutrality, or reliability of the RCMP as a national police force.

The RCMP's mandate and unique role, a term we are using here, would be well protected within that process, so these exclusions seem to me to be redundant. In the absence of further argument from the government, although I will stress again that I do not think we have been given anything that would count as an argument for any of these specific exclusions, it seems to me that the unique role of the RCMP is quite well protected by this legislation, so the exclusions are redundant.

As I say, I am hopeful that these are things that can be corrected at committee. If we do that, we will end up with a proposal that can better reflect the desire of the RCMP members who have been vocal on this case. That is what we should be striving for. Minimally meeting the conditions of the Supreme Court decision is really not enough.

We have an opportunity here to respect the spirit of what collective bargaining should be. We have a mechanism already in the bill—and it is not exclusion—to ensure that the unique role the RCMP plays as a national police force is respected and that there is a way to have it respected within that process by the arbitrator.

These are the reasons we feel the bill should go to committee, where it can be better explored. We will be looking for arguments from government on specific exclusions. In the absence of those arguments, we will be presenting proposals to improve this legislation and make sure that RCMP members get the right to bargain collectively, both in spirit as well as in letter.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention. We are both missing being at committee because of this debate, and I am sure we will both scurry over there shortly afterward.

I think he is right. Bill C-7 is the government's response. I rose in January to say that the government was taking more time to correct a flaw. However, I will say again that the court's first and fundamental tenet of the charter right is employee choice, and that is not reflected in the bill. What is catching the government in an awkward position is that Bill C-4, which was an election promise it made to get support from labour in the election, conflicts with Bill C-7 and what the charter expects. They will have to reconcile that before the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her interventions, which are always very on the mark in this place, and for her support for our men and women in uniform, the Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP and our veterans.

Today is indeed budget day. I did a poll yesterday. It is now going to be known as “red Tuesday“ because the red team is taking us into the red in a dramatic fashion. That needs to be part of the background to Bill C-7, because any analysis will show that this would put more pressure on the framework, in the range of tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars potentially per year. Therefore, we need to get this right by providing employee choice first.

As I said in my remarks, we should be looking at the unique needs of policing, and the court has said the unique needs of a workplace must be reflected in its bargaining agent. We should be looking at health care, mental health support, and a whole range of service conditions and issues, apart from just the salary piece, given the unique role of the RCMP and some of the impacts on our men and women with respect to their front-line service.

Therefore, I hope that the government recognizes its omission of true employee choice in Bill C-7 and makes that fix, and that it and the minister work alongside the commissioner of the RCMP to ensure that bargaining, and the well-being of our people, are not just with respect to salary negotiations but also in terms of safeguarding the employees' wellness in uniform and afterward.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend who I know is passionate about the subject. However, it concerns me greatly that he would suggest that the Government of Canada would act in an untoward manner against some of its own people. I am sure he can pluck a few Public Service Labour Relations Board decisions showing an employer trying to resist unionization. We are talking about the government. That is why his colleague was at this briefing. That is why the officials said that the normal course for certification in the public realm is by secret ballot.

What I find interesting is that these decisions have shown that the old Wagner model is wearing out, and the very fact of exclusivity for a union is now at risk. As a labour lawyer himself, the member should look at that. What is nice about Bill C-7 is that the government recognized the unique nature of the RCMP. Therefore, the traditional public sector unions cannot just move in and try and unionize this workforce; rather, it has to be a unique bargaining agent looking at the needs of the workforce. That is where labour law is going. It is looking at the unique needs of the workplace and the people at the front lines. Therefore, we respect the fact that Bill C-7 has tried to get that balance right.

Its one major omission is the secret ballot right that most public sector employees have enjoyed, which the Supreme Court has indicated is fundamental. I truly hope that the government realizes this oversight in Bill C-7 and moves to correct it. Then we would have something important for our men and women in uniform that could move quickly through this place.

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

Madam Speaker, in fact, I am suggesting to the House and to my colleague that that is what the Supreme Court has required. With employee choice being the most fundamental element of this charter right, the true way to provide employee choice with respect to unionization and the bargaining unit itself is the secret ballot.

I keep finding myself referencing Liberal leaders in the House, usually to show how the new Liberal government is quite different from the past. We have had the secret ballot in Canada since Alexander Mackenzie, a little known prime minister. He was a Liberal prime minister in 1874. This has been a fundamental tenet of our parliamentary democracy and, in fact, my friend who asked this question was at the briefing with her officials yesterday, when one of the senior officials said that literally every certification vote in the public service has been by secret ballot.

Now that we have established it as a fundamental tenet, let us have it reflected in Bill C-7. As I said, if the Liberals support the Conservative amendment to this, we may see this bill pass speedily through the House, particularly with the court deadline of April. I would like to see the government move on this and see that happen.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today in this debate on Bill C-7 and to be the first speaker on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on this important subject.

All parties in this place respect the important role played by the RCMP/GRC, our Mounties, and not just for the iconic image they represent around the world and the subsequent acknowledgement of Canadians as a people who respect one another and enjoy peace, order, and good government. We acknowledge, and we have paid homage in this House, when some of our front-line men and women have risked their lives and in fact given their lives in recent years in Alberta and Moncton, serving Canada and protecting the society we all enjoy.

The Conservative Party, when we were in government, followed the court case of the Mounted Police Association of Ontario very closely as it made its way through the courts. We are here today because of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that came down last year and provided an opportunity for the government to respond.

The previous government had been looking at the Supreme Court decision, consulting, meeting with senior leadership within the RCMP, and hearing from front-line members. Then there was the transition, and the same issue was faced by the new Liberal government, which asked for a bit of an extension in January. The court has given the government until April to come up with a framework for labour relations and bargaining for members of the RCMP that meets the spirit and intent of the Supreme Court decision in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario versus Canada.

I am here today as the official opposition public safety critic. I will be speaking just before or alongside my colleague, who is responsible for Treasury Board, and certainly the impact of Supreme Court decision has an dual aspect. It solidifies and elucidates the right to collective bargaining that the Supreme Court has given members of the RCMP, as their exclusion from the Public Service Labour Relations Act was declared unconstitutional and in violation of section 2(d) of the charter, the right to association.

However, there certainly will be economic ramifications of that as well. That is the second aspect of the decision, and that is why the opposition will lead off with both public safety and Treasury Board critics speaking.

As the public safety critic, having heard from Commissioner Paulson just yesterday and having already had the opportunity to have him before the public safety committee in this new Parliament, I want to begin my remarks by thanking the front-line men and women of our RCMP. They are charged with a very important role in our country, given the breadth and size of our country and the fact that large portions of rural Canada would not have policing services were it not for the men and women of the RCMP.

This conversation on this subject, while it deals with labour relations and ultimately will have an impact on the fiscal framework for Canada, must begin by acknowledgement on all sides of this House of the tremendous respect we have for the RCMP. There are 28,461 regular force members of the RCMP, not including auxiliaries, whom we all know and see in communities across the country. They also play a very critical role, particularly for large events and things like that in our communities across the country.

Let us put that in perspective for a moment. That number of 28,000 or so members of Canada's police force is significant when we compare it to the next-largest police force in Canada, the Ontario Provincial Police, with about 6,100 uniformed members, and the largest municipal police service, also in Ontario, the Toronto Police Service, with 7,900 members.

The Supreme Court, and really the court case launched by the association in Ontario, recognized that alongside its municipal and provincial comrades in arms, Canada's largest police force needed the ability to have effective collective bargaining in the same way that its provincial and municipal cousins did. The Supreme Court has given some guidance on that and this has led us here to Bill C-7 today.

However, Canada's largest police force, our national police force, does attract a significant expense of the Government of Canada for salaries, a $1.6 billion commitment to public safety, to front-line policing across the country. Only time will tell, but all parties acknowledge that the impact of the Supreme Court decision and the changing of the bargaining arrangement, or in simple terms the unionization of the RCMP, will have a significant impact upon the fiscal framework for Canada.

I say that mere hours before the budget is to be brought forward by the new government. I hope it approaches Bill C-7 and its implementation with a little more caution than it appears it has approached this budget, particularly when it comes to operational spending, most of which is made up of salaries. The pressure is on that, particularly once reference bargaining between the large municipal and provincial forces begins. We need to ensure our front-line officers get what they deserve, the support they deserve, the salary, remuneration, benefits, health care, and support for mental health. We need to ensure we look at the well-being of our front-line officers, not just in the context of salaries but in how we take care of them both while they are serving and after, particularly if they leave with a service-related injury.

In my far too brief time, unfortunately, as minister of veterans affairs, I had the honour of interacting quite regularly with the RCMP and its members. As the government knows, and as its new minister well knows, the ill and injured of the RCMP are provided for and their support is administered through Veterans Affairs Canada. We have certainly seen how in recent years the health and wellness support, particularly for mental injuries from service, has dramatically come into the modern era, and we are very proud of that. I know the new government will continue that important work. Our public safety committee right now is studying operational stress injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder for our front-line responders.

The interesting things we have learned over the last generation from our veterans and from our Canadian Armed Forces are now being shared with our RCMP and with municipal and provincial police forces. In fact, the document of the Canadian Armed Forces, “Road to Mental Readiness”, a wellness document for mental health, is now really the touchstone for first responder uniformed personnel serving in Canada. That needs to be a very important part of this discussion, as does the implementation of what comes from Bill C-7.

As the member of Parliament for Durham, I also need to once again thank the men and women of RCMP detachment Bowmanville, in my community, who are part of the Toronto East, the “O” detachment of the RCMP, which is not as widely seen in Ontario because we have the OPP. This detachment for the Toronto GTA East is very important. Like in so many communities, when the men and women hang up their uniform after their shift, these same people are often the coaches at the hockey rinks and the soccer fields, and become the backbone of our communities.

I want to salute the RCMP members in my own detachment and speak for a minute about the other eight provinces.

Quebec and Ontario have provincial police forces, but many parts of Canada would not have the important underpinning of public safety were it not for the men and women of the RCMP, particularly rural areas where often that member will be the first and sole response to an incident. In recent years, the RCMP's ability to work with parts of rural Canada, first nation leadership, and first nation police forces, has truly been remarkable. That needs to also be part of the framework that becomes the new collective bargaining approach for our RCMP.

Bill C-7 is the result of the government's response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada. Specifically, it looked at whether the staff relations representative program within the RCMP met the test of giving the freedom of association to members of the RCMP guaranteed by the charter. One of the members of our caucus, who is a proud retired RCMP officer, knows that the staff relations representative program did try to act as that conduit between the workforce and management in the sense of a bargaining agent.

As a result of the creation of that staff relations program, going back to the 1970s, the RCMP was excluded from the Public Sector Labour Relations Act. It was specifically excluded in legislation. That exclusion, alongside an analysis of the staff representative program, was what the Supreme Court ultimately looked at. Its finding was that the staff relations program did not meet the standard it expected under section 2(d) of the charter providing the men and women of the RCMP with the freedom of association.

It is interesting and important to note that the decision of the Supreme Court did not say to just strike out those sections of the PSLRA, the Public Safety Labour Relations Act, and treat the RCMP like any other public service. The analysis of the Supreme Court decision is quite illustrative, particularly with our modern labour law, which is starting to move away from the traditional Wagner model that we inherited from 1930s labour relations in the United States.

What did the court actually say in this decision? We see parts of that reflected in Bill C-7, but we have concerns of another nature. The court said that section 2(d) guaranteed meaningful collective bargaining, meaningful representation, but it broke that down further and said that meaningful collective bargaining and meaningful representation had two parts. The first part was employee choice; there must be choice. With respect to the second part to provide that meaningful standard, there needed to be sufficient independence from management. This is really where the old model within the RCMP failed in the eyes of the court. The court felt the staff relations program was not seen to be independent enough from management. It was seen more as a human resources tool and not an agent for bargaining and protecting the collective rights of the employees. That is an important distinction to make. Had the staff relations program been a little more independent, this may have survived the Supreme Court's analysis.

The Supreme Court specifically said “...freedom of association under s. 2(d) is that the guarantee will not necessarily protect all associational activity.” The arrangement must not “substantially interfere”, and that is a later quote it used and is the standard, with the employees' rights to that bargaining, their choice, and the independence.

Bill C-7 does reflect that and would bring certain parts of the workplace relationship outside of the bill. I respect the fact the government has acknowledged that part of the decision. Certain elements through the grievance process and certain elements of the workplace would not be subject to the collective bargaining relationship. That is important, given the unique role and the chain of command structure and heritage of the RCMP as a police force. The government appears to have acknowledged that in Bill C-7.

What is absent entirely from Bill C-7 is that first element of the Supreme Court's decision, which is that meaningful collective bargaining and the meaningful right to association under the charter must have as its first principle employee choice.

In fact, I heard my friend from Spadina—Fort York earlier talk about the front-line members of the RCMP and say, “If they choose”. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada put as the fundamental construct to this relationship, employee choice.

However, what is absent in Bill C-7 is a codification of that employee choice which, in our modern democracy, requires a secret ballot vote. The members of the RCMP whose collective rights under section 2(b) of the charter can be exercised by their employee choice at the first instance, saying whether they want an association or not, and that vote to be conducted in a way that conforms with our democratic principles should be by secret ballot.

Why is that interesting? Because of the order paper we have two bills before Parliament. We are in the early days, so leaving out private members' business, I think we are up to Bills C-7 or C-8. Bill C-4 expresses the government's clear intention that secret ballot should not be a fundamental underpinning of the choice employees have on whether to belong to a union.

I have not heard the parliamentary secretary, my friend, in his remarks explain that omission. I hope to hear that addressed somewhere in the debate on Bill C-7, because it does drive an interesting omission on the part of the government.

The Supreme Court of Canada said that the first pillar to meaningful right of association was employee choice, but that is not codified in Bill C-7. Therefore, I think we will see the opposition, learning from the Supreme Court, ensuring that employee choice and secret ballot is directly a part of Bill C-7. We hope, with the government members being mindful of the court decision, it will agree to amend the bill to reflect that. If they do, it is our intention to work with the Liberals on it.

The previous government, as I said, was looking at the impact of the Supreme Court decision and how we could guarantee this charter right for our men and women of the RCMP, alongside ensuring their important structure, chain of command and the important duties and risks inherent in policing were respected and not diminished, and public safety would not impacted through the course of what might be regular Wagner model union construct.

What is interesting is that this decision, along with the Fraser Health decision, has shown a gradual departure in labour law from traditional Canadian law. In fact, if we look at when Justice Rosalie Abella was on the Ontario Labour Relations Board years ago, there was a balance between these arbitration type boards, quasi-judicial bodies, the law and the legislature. Now that legislatures are intervening more in labour law and now that this charter right is developing with respect to association, it is changing the old model, and the courts have acknowledged that.

In fact, some of the best labour minds in the country, including some friends of mine with whom I used to practice law, including Brian Burkett and John Craig, have written on the move away from the Wagner model. What does that mean? It means the exclusivity of a union guaranteed by the Wagner model may indeed be a thing of the past, and that it is quite acceptable for provisions of what the police do to be excluded from collective bargaining. In fact, the court has said that the Wagner model itself is not the constitutional right. It is meaningful right to collective bargaining and an agent that is constitutionally protected.

As I said, that fundamental charter right which led to this decision, the two part test, the first part is employee choice. Therefore, the government should have that reflected in Bill C-7: employee choice on who their agent should be, on their priorities, as well employee choice on whether they are unionized. That should be by secret ballot, which Canada has had since 1874. If the government acknowledges and amends this, it may see some unanimity in this place, and I would like to see that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this place to speak to the second 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 affecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police labour relations regime and its operation, tabled by the hon. President of the Treasury Board.

On January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in the case of the Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), that section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of association and protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining. Such a process must provide the employees with both choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and advance their collective interests.

Because the current labour relations regime does not meet this requirement, the court found it to be unconstitutional. The court gave the federal government 12 months to comply with this ruling. Due to the federal elections in the intervening period, a four-month extension was granted for the government to table legislation. Indeed, this is a technical bill to comply with the government's legal obligations. It does not claim to offer additional remedies to some of the challenges confronting the RCMP as an organization, such as operational stress injuries or harassment.

Our government is committed to ensuring that we provide adequate support to members of the RCMP and other first responders affected by operational stress injuries, as well as the eradication of any and all forms of harassment within this important and iconic institution for our country.

This bill was drafted following extensive consultations with regular members of the RCMP and jurisdictions with RCMP police service agreements. Jurisdictions with RCMP police service agreements were consulted, they and provided input about their concerns in the development of a new RCMP labour relations regime. As this regime is being implemented, we will continue to keep our contracting parties informed.

In addition, in the summer of 2015, RCMP regular members were surveyed and a series of town hall meetings was carried out across the country to develop a solid understanding of their preferences. Results indicated that a strong majority of RCMP regular members supported the idea of a unionized RCMP. In addition, as I noted earlier, there was strong support for binding arbitration, with no right to strike, to resolve bargaining impasses. Finally, there was also support for a single national bargaining unit comprising RCMP members and reservists only. The proposed legislation was shaped by these consultations. Our government is grateful for all the feedback that was received.

Furthermore, we intend to work with all parliamentarians in an open and engaging manner throughout the legislative process, in order to achieve the desired objective in the very limited allotted time in which we have to comply with the Supreme Court decision.

I will take a few minutes to clarify some important parts of the bill.

First, the bill would allow for the creation of a single national employee association representing all RCMP members and reservists excluding those at the inspector rank or higher. To clarify, the RCMP has a pool of reservists who are qualified police officers able to provide short-term services when the need arises.

Second, the bill stipulates that the bargaining agent must exist to serve the police. The Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board could certify only a union whose primary mandate is the representation of RCMP members. In other words, the union could not represent other police officers, other police forces, or groups of employees who are not members of the RCMP.

Third, the bill excludes officers at the inspector rank and above from the collective bargaining process, just as public service managers are excluded from representation.

Fourth, even though RCMP members and reservists will not have the right to strike, the bill establishes a binding arbitration process for conflict resolution.

Binding arbitration will give members and reservists an effective way to advance their interests in the workplace. It is worth noting that RCMP members have already indicated their support for binding arbitration.

Lastly, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will serve as an administrative tribunal for all matters related to the collective bargaining process for RCMP members and reservists.

It is also important to note that any disciplinary action that currently falls under the authority of the commissioner of the RCMP pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act will continue to be managed through the existing process.

I would like to conclude my speech by emphasizing the government's commitment to support the proud and dedicated men and women of the RCMP. If this legislation goes through, RCMP members and reservists will have the right to make choices regarding who represents them when it comes to labour relations. This will be done in a way that reflects the working environment that is unique to law enforcement.

Our government takes its responsibility to protect Canadians' security very seriously. The RCMP plays a key role in ensuring that we can fulfill this mission. Accordingly, our efforts will always focus on doing what is in the best interests of this vital Canadian institution.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, the principle of the bill is empowering RCMP members to have the same rights and freedoms as other police forces across the country and the right to collective bargaining.

At this time, details around the manner of certification are being debated in the House on another bill, so the exact mechanisms that move forward with Bill C-7 would depend on the outcome of that bill.

However, I can assure the member that this is about freedom and opportunities and equality for RCMP members and reservists.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, we appreciate most of Bill C-7, and certainly we want to support our RCMP members and all the work they do, but I find it interesting that the bill does not include the opportunity for RCMP members to have a secret ballot when they wish to unionize. I would like to ask why.

It seems again that, when we are talking about bills on unions and democracy, secret ballots are something the government does not seem to support. I would like to ask why the opportunity for a secret ballot is not included in this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Montarville.

I rise to speak to Bill C-7. The bill would uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining.

A meaningful process of collective bargaining must provide employees with enough choice and freedom to allow them to pursue their collective interests. Bill C-7 does just that. It would provide RCMP members and reservists with the freedom to choose whether they wish to be represented by a bargaining agent. It would also provide them with the ability to choose which employee organization would represent them, as well as the workplace objectives they would pursue. It would also ensure that they could make those choices independent of management.

Allow me to take a moment to explain the context in which the bill was developed. Currently RCMP members are not permitted to bargain collectively and have no recourse to arbitration or strike action. In 2006, the Mounted Police Association of Ontario and the B.C. Mounted Police Professional Association, on behalf of all members of the RCMP, challenged this restriction in the courts. Ultimately the matter was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada, and on January 16 of last year, the Supreme Court rendered its decision. The court struck down the exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of employee in the Public Service Labour Relations Act as being unconstitutional. In addition, the court held that sections of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The current process fails to achieve the balance between employees and employers that is essential to meaningful collective bargaining. Accordingly, the court held that this violated the charter right to freedom of association. The court suspended its judgment for one year to give the Government of Canada time to consider its options. The government sought an extension and was given an additional four months to introduce legislation in the House of Commons that would provide a new labour framework for RCMP members and reservists.

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision has a significant impact on the way that RCMP labour relations are managed. A new labour relations regime for RCMP members would need to provide them with an effective collective bargaining regime, and in a manner that respects the unique role of the RCMP as Canada's national police force. The Supreme Court decision therefore required careful consideration of next steps. This included broad consultation with regular members of the RCMP, and the provinces and territories that have police service agreements with the RCMP.

The Government of Canada takes our responsibility to protect the safety and security of Canadians extremely seriously. We are committed to supporting the dedicated women and men of Canada's national police service who protect Canadians on so many fronts. They combat organized crime and defend our country against terrorists. They guard us from those who deal in illicit drugs and those who commit economic crimes. They protect us from offences that threaten the integrity of Canada's national borders. They provide contract policing services in eight provinces and three territories. Through its national police services, the RCMP offers resources to other Canadian law enforcement agencies. This is by no means an exhaustive list of what these committed individuals do to protect Canadians and to deserve our respect.

Respect is a key operating principle of our government. One of the top priorities of our government is establishing a culture of respect for and within the federal public service. That is why when it comes to respectful treatment of RCMP members and reservists, we thank the Supreme Court for its ruling. It has afforded us with this historic opportunity to enshrine the constitutional freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining.

It is important to note that the negotiation of collective agreements is a right that has been enjoyed by other police officers in Canada for a very long time. In fact, the first police union in Canada was in Saint John, New Brunswick in 1919. The Ontario Provincial Police Association, representing civilian and non-commissioned uniform members of the OPP, came into existence in 1954.

Today, the bill before us would provide RCMP members and reservists with their independence and freedom of choice in labour relations matters while recognizing the unique operational reality of policing.

Independence and freedom of choice were two key elements of the Supreme Court's decision.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the consultations that were crucial to the development of the legislation before us today.

During the summer of 2015, an independent expert consulted RCMP regular members on potential elements of a new labour relations regime. The consultation consisted of a survey and town hall sessions and reached out to all 17,000 active members, as well as more than 1,000 members on leave. More than 9,000 members completed the survey. As well, more than 650 people participated in 13 town hall sessions held right across the country.

The legislation before us, therefore, respects regular members' preferences in determining a new labour relations regime for the RCMP. It also takes into account the concerns and interests of those jurisdictions that contract RCMP services, including most of the provinces and territories as well as many municipalities across Canada.

Most regular members who participated in the online consultation said they support the idea of a unionized RCMP. Recognizing the particular operational reality of the RCMP, members showed a strong preference for a labour relations regime that would use binding arbitration without the right to strike as the mechanism for resolving bargaining impasses. This approach is consistent with other police forces across the country.

Members also showed clear support for the option of representation by a single national employee organization whose primary mandate would be the representation of RCMP members. Such an organization and the use of binding arbitration are two key features of the proposed legislation.

Consistent with existing provisions in the Public Service Labour Relations Act that exclude public service executives in managerial or confidential positions from representation, all RCMP officers appointed to the ranks of inspector and above would be excluded from collective bargaining.

Under this bill, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be the administrative tribunal for matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, as well as grievances related to a collective agreement. This would include grievances on terms and conditions of employment of a collective agreement, such as hours of work, overtime, and leave provisions.

The proposed legislation would preserve the commissioner's authority under the RCMP Act to manage police operations in an effective manner that is accountable to Canadians. Therefore, RCMP conduct matters would remain outside the jurisdiction of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board and instead would continue to be managed through processes established under the RCMP Act.

The bill before us today offers RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that everyone be entitled to freedom of association. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that this charter freedom protects the right to bargain collectively.

I am honoured to rise in support of this legislation, which would permit RCMP members and reservists to exercise their freedom of association by engaging in a process of meaningful collective bargaining. I encourage all members to show their respect for the women and men of the RCMP and to vote in support of this bill.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)