Public Safety Committee on April 21st, 2016

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

I think it's been submitted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Then I'll draw your attention to the amendment that's been submitted.

Would you like to speak to it?

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

This was an amendment we raised at second reading debate in the House and certainly in this committee as well.

We feel that in any democratic organization, in the certification process for a bargaining agent or the vote for a bargaining agent, a secret ballot process should be in place to allow all members to express their own opinion on certification.

In the briefing that parliamentary secretaries were kind enough to have with departmental officials, we were informed that all previous certification votes of public sector bargaining agents had been done by secret ballot. We're aware that there's a concurrent bill, C-4 on the order paper, but for this particular certification, given that employee choice was one of the key considerations in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario Supreme Court decision, we feel that line 3 on page 18 should be replaced with a direct reference to a secret ballot representation so that all members of the force have their say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Clause 33 is quite a lengthy clause. It's one of our longest clauses, if not the longest clause in the bill.

We are on page 18. It is under proposed subsection 238.13(2), which begins:

The Board may certify an employee organization referred to in subsection (1) as the bargaining agent for the

and then line three would be replaced by:

group only if it is satisfied on the basis of the results of a secret ballot representation vote that a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit who have cast a ballot have voted to have the employee organization represent them as their bargaining agent and that the employee organiza-

Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Blaikie.

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

If we're going to refer to the Supreme Court judgment, it was silent on the method of choice. It doesn't say that choice means 50% plus one and it doesn't say that it means a secret ballot.

I think there's a long history. What's really at stake here is the principle of card check and whether card check is a good certification. What's also at stake is the question of whether RCMP members are going to continue to be treated differently from other workers.

I think the Supreme Court decision was clear that part of what was wrong with the previous law was that RCMP members have a right to bargain collectively. They have a right to be treated the way other workers have been treated, and that means certifying under the rules that obtain for other workers.

I would respectfully disagree that there's a special case to be made about the method of certification for RCMP members. If it's good enough for every other federally regulated group to certify under a card-check system, then it's good enough for RCMP members. I don't think that there's anything extra or special that you get out of having this particular system for RCMP members and not for everyone else.

I think it's appropriate in this context, because the real issue is card check. Card check was brought in partly because we know that when you have a fixed date for a vote and a lead-up to the vote, in some cases—not to say every employer is going to do this—it creates an opportunity for the employer to engage in various types of intimidation in the lead-up to the vote. Having a card check system is a protection for other workers. I think RCMP members deserve the same protection. For that reason, I don't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

Mr. O'Toole mentioned that Bill C-4 is already being considered before the House. I agree with my colleague from the NDP that the RCMP shouldn't be treated any differently from anyone else. Bill C-4 will cover them, and it should cover everyone, including the RCMP. I won't be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Mr. O'Toole.

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

Well, Mr. Chair, I'm rather disappointed. We're in this room all intimate and tight together to try to forge a consensus. With regard to the position Ms. Damoff just outlined, which was that they would be treated differently—a position that Mr. Blaikie echoed—I would remind you that our briefing told us that all previous certifications of the public sector unions were by secret ballot. This would be treating them consistently.

I think that's important to note.

I would also note that 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 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 and so on. This is a professional police force whose employer will be the government. I think the concerns about intimidation have no basis in reality for public sector unions. The only true way to see what individual members feel is to give each of those individual members the right to a secret ballot.

We seem to think it's okay to elect us to this place in that manner. Mr. Eglinski, who spent over 30 years on the force, has said, as has the survey that's before us, there is not a consistent position, so why do we fear giving members that choice?

I'll let it stand, and if people vote against it, I guess they do, but they're suppressing democracy.

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

Before we vote, I take your point. I'm proud of the federal government and I'm proud of the RCMP, but I don't think that kind of emotional indignation has a role in setting good process. Good process for certification should be set according to our conception of what a good process is.

I take it you have some arguments on process that I disagree with, but I think that trying to introduce this notion that somehow we're offending the institution by asking questions about what a good process is or that we're slighting RCMP management or the federal civil service and Treasury Board to say these things may happen is wrong. We need a good process that protects people trying to organize, regardless of our feelings about the employer. I think good employers understand that, and I have confidence that RCMP management and civil service management won't take it the wrong way, Mr. O'Toole.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to remind my colleagues on the opposition as well as the government side that the requirement to unionize was as a consequence of a Supreme Court ruling and was not as a consequence of the majority of RCMP members wanting this type of method to govern the way they protect themselves. With many, the SRRP was fully engaged and representing their needs.

That said, once the decision—by the Supreme Court, and not as a consequence of a vote by all members—came down, there was a survey done in 2015. The legislation that was put forth recently does not reflect the answers to that survey. In fact, what the members wanted was their own stand-alone legislation. They did not want to be lumped in with the other civil servant type of deal.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Mr. Mendicino.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

First of all, I'd like to thank my honourable colleagues across the way for their offerings this morning. I have some trouble reconciling the case for workplace democracy in the face of the record of the past administration, an administration that introduced legislation to end strikes and to impose wage restraints and wage caps on unions that were trying to bargain for better wages and better benefits, but we'll leave that aside for a moment.

I want to take a moment to respond to Ms. Gallant's comments about workplace democracy and the Jolicoeur consultation report that came out. I want to point out a few important stats.

Of the members who were polled, 77% said it was of great importance, or it mattered a lot, that they have a bargaining unit. It's true that 65% of the RCMP wanted a bargaining unit that represented only the police force, and I think we'll come back to that. Also, 62% wanted a single national bargaining unit and didn't want regional bargaining units. As well, 83% wanted the principal mandate of the bargaining unit to be RCMP-focussed, while 80% strongly agreed or agreed they should have binding arbitration. I say that in contrast to any kind of suggestion there isn't a critical mass of RCMP members who want to achieve the collective bargaining rights that are being considered today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Blaikie is next, and then Mr. Eglinski.

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

The Supreme Court decision didn't require unionization of the RCMP. What it required was that unionization of the RCMP was not prohibited.

We hear, “Have RCMP members already pronounced or not on whether they want a union?” Well, they weren't allowed to pronounce on that, and still aren't, until we pass a bill that allows them to. The certification process is the process by which we will come to know whether a majority of RCMP members want to have a union. We need a good process to be able to do that. The card-check system is a private system. They'll sign their card in private. It will be submitted. That's another way for them to privately express their desires with regard to whether or not they want to have a union.

I think that's an important distinction. Part of what we're doing here is enabling a process whereby RCMP members will be able to pronounce with authority whether they want a union. The court didn't decide that. We're trying to set up a process so they can decide that for themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A lot of the numbers you gave out are correct. The members out there do want to see one united bargaining unit, but there is a decisive split within the members of the RCMP out in the field when you talk to them.

A lot of the younger members feel unsure of how they're supposed to vote when they're working in the rank structure. Their management in the field detachments where they work are older than they are and have an understanding that is different from what they have. They want to see a change, but in the police atmosphere we're very private about our individual concerns.

I think if we don't give them that secret ballot, they are going to feel very uncomfortable about which way to go. With a secret ballot they're going to give a very honest feeling towards whether they want to be unionized or not. I think that's the crucial point here. The rest of it all comes after that.

Yes, your numbers are correct in the sense that they want to see one body looking after them, one body representing them and stuff like that, but they're very concerned about whether that needs to be a union or whether it doesn't need to be a union. It's very important, I believe, to the members to know they can do that and feel secure by doing it with a private, secret vote.

That's no different from you and me, and no different from when you are going to vote on a new leader for your party in the next year and a half and we're going to vote for a new leader in a year or a year and a half.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We have one for the very foreseeable future.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

You're lucky you don't have to go through what we do.

It's very important. When you're doing it within house, you want to be private. You want to be secure that it's not going to cause ramifications down the road.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to hear Ms. Gallant, and then I'm going to check the pulse of the room.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps my question is best posed to the parliamentary secretary.

My question is, should the vast majority of members vote this legislation down, this particular type of certification? Would it be rammed down their throats anyhow, or we would we go back to the drawing board and draft something that is more like what they had originally intended?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Would either parliamentary secretary care to comment?

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

That's a pretty big hypothetical, so....

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. O'Toole.