Public Safety Committee on April 21st, 2016

[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, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's a point that I would like to make sure is also considered in this discussion, and it is that the clauses in the bill do not dictate whether it would be one way or another at certifying. In fact, it gives the opportunity to the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to determine that, based on what is most appropriate at the time, so it doesn't restrict it to one or the other.

As well, the key issue here is that there is another bill before the House, Bill C-4, which has the intention of restoring the certification and decertification options and processes that were in place for employee groups before they were changed by the previous government through Bill C-525.

There is a Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It has the responsibility for reviewing Bill C-4, so these discussions about whether Bill C-4 is preferable to the previous government's Bill C-525 on these matters are going to have a full airing at that committee. That's where I think we should leave it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. O'Toole, are you going to summarize your opinion again?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You're permitted.

I think there's an opinion that another bill that will cover it, so I think the comments are in order. I think they're helpful. Both sides are helpful.

I don't like to cut debate, but I'm sensing that everything has been said.

Go ahead, Ms. Gallant.

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

I have one question for the parliamentary secretary: why does she think it's a foregone conclusion that the vast majority of the membership is going to vote in favour of this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I didn't hear that, but could you...?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I think I can clarify. I think you heard it differently. I think Ms. Gallant was talking about the members of the RCMP voting and I think Ms. Murray heard it as the members of Parliament voting on a bill. I think it was the use of the word “member” that was confusing. I think that's what happened there.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

If it's the members of the RCMP who were being referred to, through the chair, the intention of this bill is to set out a framework to satisfy the Supreme Court ruling with respect to the opportunity to be represented, so I wouldn't be speculating personally on whether the members will take advantage of this opportunity or whether they will not. The purpose here is to provide that opportunity. We know that the majority of the members who were surveyed would like to see the opportunity available.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Very good.

Mr. Eglinski.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I won't take long, but you mentioned that the earlier question she asked you was related to the members in the field. What would happen if they vote this down? Suppose they decide they don't want a union; where are we at? Are we back here two years down the road or three years down the road?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I think that's a speculative question, a “what-if”. That is not the business of this particular bill, which aims to satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Court and to do so in a way that respects the dedicated members of the RCMP and provides them with an opportunity to have employee representation, and that's what the committee members are doing their very best to conclude.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

To further clarify your summary—

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Do we feel we've had a fair discussion on this amendment?

Then I'm going to ask the question.

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

Can we have a name vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Shall the amendment, which is the first amendment to clause 33, carry? All in favour...oh, you asked for a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We continue on, then, with clause 33.

We have another amendment to clause 33. Two more amendments to clause 33 have been submitted. Mr. Blaikie and the NDP have submitted the first one, which is also on page 18 as NDP-1. Mr. Blaikie, would you like to comment on your amendment as you've presented it?

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

Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't know if this would be in order, but the first two amendments are largely the same. They're to give clarity to the same term. If you would like to consider them together, I'm not opposed to that. I don't know if it's in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Smart people are advising me that we should take them separately.

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

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We'll take them one at a time. There's a slight difference to them, so they should be considered separately.