Evidence of meeting #11 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-7.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm going to suggest two things.
I actually don't believe it's a point of order. I think it's a good point of debate.
I think it's also a good point of information for our committee to receive that report. We'll ask our analyst to help us with that. I think it was just released. We'll get that report.
Liberal
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you very much.
I just wanted to finish up on this point. There are existing tools within the government in its role as an employer apparatus to address it. Notwithstanding that, you say, in your experience, having represented employees on the RCMP side, that it's dysfunctional.
Lawyer, Champ and Associates, As an Individual
I'm done with a case just this last fall, six months ago. It's grotesque. This is the Police College one. It's ridiculous, but I've seen it before. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I think we got the point. Thank you very much.
In a scenario where harassment remains excluded from the bargaining table, can RCMP members avail themselves of unfair labour practice remedies under the PSLRA as it relates to the conduct of an employer?
Lawyer, Champ and Associates, As an Individual
Well, I guess if they were harassed because they were trying to unionize or because they were a representative who was assisting another member and then they became subjected to some unfair treatment, you're right, that could be something you could bootstrap under an unfair labour practice complaint and get before the board. That would not be beyond the purview of a manager to do, for sure.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Last but not least, is it your opinion that if harassment is excluded from collective bargaining that it would amount to an infringement under section 2(d), not justifiable under section 1?
Lawyer, Champ and Associates, As an Individual
Yes, very potentially. That wasn't before the MPAO case, but there are other cases before the Supreme Court of Canada such as the B.C. Health Services case. It had to do with certain workplace conditions that the employer unilaterally imposed by statute of the B.C. government, and then the union was deprived of the opportunity to negotiate. That was found to be in violation of the charter, and I think these terms could very well be found in violation as well.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair.
Thanks again to the witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you.
Thank you, witnesses. It's been helpful for us to hear opinions that are somewhat outside the realm of what we've been hearing.
This is a reminder that we'll meet on Thursday at 11 o'clock. We are going to be doing our clause-by-clause consideration beginning on Thursday. As you know, I think there's all-party agreement that we're going to have a special briefing on clauses 40 and 42 at that time. It will be within the context of the clause-by-clause review. We'll try to work out at the actual time whether or not we begin the meeting with that briefing, or we continue and break in when we come to clauses 40 and 42. We'll see whatever works best for the officials giving us the briefing.
I need to tell you what a privilege it is to chair this committee today. I love the way the committee is taking both the RCMP concerns so seriously as well as the mandate for us to get a piece of legislation that's been referred to us from the Supreme Court of Canada done quickly. Thank you for your hard work.
The meeting is adjourned.