Evidence of meeting #12 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 rcmp.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Bob Paulson  Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Manon Brassard  Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat

11 a.m.

Liberal

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)

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

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

Do we adopt the clauses in English and French?

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

We adopt them in both languages. Actually, we have to adopt them in one language and it works for the other language.

Do I have...?

Go ahead, Ms. Gallant.

April 21st, 2016 / 11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

I have a question about one of the clauses. It doesn't mean I'm going to dispute it or anything. I simply have a question in regard to employee organizations. I believe it's paragraph 3(1)(a) in respect of RCMP employees who are not RCMP members or reservists, and overall the organization before and after.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

I'm going to take this question and not assume we don't have unanimous consent for the moment. Then I'll check on unanimous consent, because we may still get unanimous consent. I just want to make sure we do that.

Sorry, give me a minute. It's paragraph 3(1)(a). Okay.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

This is in reference to the previous organization, SRRP. We heard in testimony that it was stood down without any advance warning, and for this period of time there has been no recourse for RCMP members, no entity to go to.

I'm wondering who gave the order. Where did that order to stand down the SRRP originate?

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Mr. Paulson, would you like to comment on that?

11:10 a.m.

Commissioner Bob Paulson Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Yes. That came from me.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

The reason I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that within days we had the CBC come out with this whole issue of that scandal at the college. After that point, the members have not had a chance.... They've had nobody to go to because SRRP was dissolved at that point.

I have no further questions.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Would you care to comment on that?

11:10 a.m.

Commr Bob Paulson

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

That's not entirely accurate. The decision to terminate the SRRP was part of a phased-in transition to the interim model, which is the members' representative group that will carry us to the point at which somebody is certified.

In fact, not all of the SRRP had been phased out or decommissioned or terminated by that point; there was quite a careful transition so that there was always representation available to the members.

In the case you're speaking of, there were public servants involved. Those are folks who are already represented by certified bargaining agents, and they were properly engaged as well. That is thus not quite an accurate representation.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Are there any other questions on that point?

I just might ask this, then: if the process of certification takes a considerable amount of time, are you confident that you have in place a system that will last until certification, if it should actually take place?

11:10 a.m.

Commr Bob Paulson

Yes, I'm very confident.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

We'll be watching.

Yes, Ms. Damoff.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Just along that same line, one of the comments the witnesses made was that they required the dues that were paid into it in order to take things to litigation. Will the new organization have any kind of money to pursue anything, if complaints come forward?

11:10 a.m.

Commr Bob Paulson

I think you're referring to the legal fund, which was a completely separate sort of arrangement from the SRRP.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Oh, yes, I'm sorry. You're right.

11:10 a.m.

Commr Bob Paulson

Similarly, it continues to be a separate and distinct entity, which I think may be attached to one of the respective bargaining agents; I don't know.

The interim model will be funded by the force, by the government, but not in the sense that it would duplicate a legal fund.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Can you provide some of the rationale for having terminated the automatic checkoff for the legal fund? Presumably nothing substantial has changed from the point of view of needing that fund or in the way the fund works, so why make it more difficult for the fund to operate now?

11:10 a.m.

Commr Bob Paulson

Thank you for your question.

The intent was not to make it more difficult. The intent was to make the playing ground fairer.

There are all sorts of connections and networks and relationships that lead to prospective bargaining agents. One could argue, if one took another's viewpoint, that allowing that body to continue to collect funds would be a disadvantage to another prospective bargaining agent and therefore an unfair labour practice.

Our whole philosophy in this transition phase, as you deliberate over this bill, is to make sure that the organization is as neutral and as distant from allegations of favouritism or unfair practices as possible. That required separating ourselves.

It is similar with lack of access to our GroupWise or our email system. It has to be fair for everyone who is looking to be a prospective bargaining agent. That's the reason behind that change.

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

It sounds to me as though the legal fund has been a long-standing institution within the RCMP for decades. It's not itself seeking to organize, is it? I don't know what the relationships are here, but there is a substantive matter of legal protection and access to resources for RCMP members in the interim. It could be a long interim.

Is there not a sense that because this eliminates or makes more difficult some substantial protection for RCMP members, there is an obligation to make sure that the interests the legal fund serves can continue to be served in that interim period?

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

If you have a quick answer, I'll allow it. I am going, though, to push us into the matters at hand in the bill. I believe we're moving outside our clause-by-clause consideration. We have a long discussion. If you'd like to answer that quickly, I'll allow it, but then I'm going to ask us to move on to the actual matter at hand.

11:15 a.m.

Commr Bob Paulson

Very quickly, there are existing mechanisms within the Government of Canada that provide for legal protections and defence of members.

That is quite separate from the legal fund. The legal fund is plainly outside the organization and attached, arguably, to certain other interests. We therefore wanted to distance ourselves and provide a fair playing ground.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you very much.

Let us now continue with the matter of unanimous consent.

Do we have unanimous consent to consider clauses 1 through 32 together?

Hearing no dissent, I would like to ask the question.

Shall clauses 1 through 32 carry?

(Clauses 1 to 32 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 33)

We're now going to move rather expeditiously to clause 33, for which we do have amendments. That's on page 12 of the act.

Mr. O'Toole has an amendment to clause 33.

Would you like to present the amendment now?