I think it might serve the committee well if I read parts of the amendment, because I think some of those concerns are very clearly addressed in the amendment itself. When we talk about whether it would be the RCMP union being part of.... I think actually the term at the turn of the last century was One Big Union, but I don't think this amendment would permit that at all.
We say that:
an employee organization is considered to be affiliated with a bargaining agent or other association when:
The employee organization would be affiliated if it:
joins or becomes a member of a bargaining agent or other association;
The employee organization would also be affiliated if it:
is bound together with or controlled by a bargaining agent or other association through constitutional obligations; or
the employee organization engages in a relationship with a bargaining agent or other association in which the other party exercises a substantial degree of control, direction, or restriction on the activity of the employee organization.
I hear your concerns. I completely agree with the argument that it should be a separate union for police officers. I think the fact that they're authorized to use force creates a very different situation, but I think this clarification on what affiliation would mean protects that. That's the point and the purpose of it.
I do definitely hear that argument, but I also think we need to give some certainty to a fledgling organization so that if it does partner with other organizations that have expertise in what the RCMP organization would be just beginning to do, it would not be held over their head. I strongly disagree with Mr. O'Toole suggestion that this is the thin edge of the wedge. The provisions in this amendment very clearly rule out the kinds of associations that Mr. O'Toole has articulated—clearly.
I would say the rebuttal to that argument is right in the amendment.