Public Safety Committee on April 21st, 2016

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

The purpose of this amendment is to add to the section beneath requirements for certification that says “for greater clarity”. It's also to provide greater clarity as to what exactly “affiliation” means. The law as it reads now is vague with respect to affiliation, and vagueness cuts both ways. I think it would be right for us to give a more definite shape to what exactly “affiliation” is going to mean.

If RCMP members choose to certify, it's going to be a new union that represents them. There is currently no national union that has as its mandate to represent only members of the police. It may be that this union will want to avail itself of some of the expertise that already exists in the labour movement. This could come in the form of a service contract or in some other form, even space-sharing. If a union is certified to represent RCMP members, it's going to have to spread across the country and to remote and rural areas. It may be that it would be helpful to co-operate with other friendly organizations to get space that they otherwise wouldn't immediately have a budget to rent.

To have the vague term “affiliation” hanging over their head when trying to do that would be of concern to that organization. “Affiliation” also appears in the clause having to do with revocation of certification. If you have a new organization and you're trying to resource yourselves and extend your reach across a vast country, you may want to have some help and allies.

I think we could do them a favour by making it clear what “affiliation” means and by creating some space for them to avail themselves of those opportunities. This could be in the form of co-operation in getting space on a pro bono basis or by entering into a service contract. It could also be by entering into a lease agreement with another union that already has space. Right now, if you just say “affiliation”, it could be brought against them that by leasing space from another union they're now affiliated with that union.

I think that would be ridiculous. It's incumbent on us to create space within the legislation to permit that kind of association, which is not one that, in my view, would jeopardize the independence of that organization. It's simply a service contract. They would be free to make such a contract with commercial interests. I don't think it makes sense to potentially prohibit them from renting space from another organization simply because it's a union and not a private landlord.

I think we need to bring clarity to what “affiliation” means so that it's there at the outset. This way, if it's brought into being, they will be able to use resources available to them without the threat of having a decertification action brought against them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

The others have had a couple of days to read the amendment.

Mr. Di Iorio.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his comments. I appreciate his efforts to arrive at legislation that is even more impeccable. However, I cannot agree with him. I have some points to bring to my colleagues' attention.

First, in my opinion, we have to distinguish between attempting to clarify and attempting to restrict. An attempt to clarify involves wanting to make the understanding of certain concepts clearer. However, clarification can end up restricting the scope of a provision. I see restrictive elements here. That is why I cannot support my colleague's attempt to amend the bill.

Moreover, the notion of affiliation has been interpreted by tribunals that specialize in labour law. So there is rich and abundant case law to guide the specialized tribunal in charge of implementing the legislation.

Something else is important for the notion of affiliation, in the light of what I have just said. Let us not forget that not only representatives of a number of informal associations, but also members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have expressed the desire for an independent entity, if unionization takes place. True, we have heard from the United Steelworkers, who came to express their point of view, but I have not heard either members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or senior management, or members of the public, expressing any support for the case they were making.

However, I have heard a lot of testimony about the specific, unique and distinct nature of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A number of community organizations, as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police leadership, have made reference to the RCMP's paramilitary nature, a nature that is unique in our society.

In the light of those facts, let me simply give you one concrete example. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is called upon to respond in order to keep the peace and maintain order, as well as to stop individuals from committing certain actions. It may have to use force. In this, we were guided by the consideration that police officers must not find themselves in a position of conflicting loyalties or interests, or that any possibility of reprisals be involved. That could be the case with an affiliation or attachment to any organization whatsoever, and from the fact that they took action because their superiors ordered them to do so. They are in a paramilitary situation where they must obey and follow the orders they have been given. Therefore, they must not be subject to any other authority.

For those reasons, I cannot support the proposed amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. O'Toole is next, and then Mr. Blaikie.

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

I think I speak for Conservative members, Mr. Chair—or I may be corrected if they want to weigh in on these amendments—when I say that the amendments certainly contradict the basic direction given in the survey, in that members want an RCMP-specific union that will be able to serve the unique needs of a paramilitary organization, as was canvassed at length within committee testimony. That is consistent with direction from the Supreme Court, which has said the Wagner model is not required in all situations and that as long as employee choice and independence are met, the bargaining agent can be narrow to the group impacted by the bargaining.

I would also suggest that despite some of the nice comments about sharing boardrooms and things like that between one union and another, the power imbalance that leads to the need for a union now exists in the creation of these mega-unions that lump together a whole series of workers who do not have shared interests, whereas the collective of the mega-union has weight and power vis-à-vis the employer. In the case of the RCMP, we really want to make sure the needs of the front-line members are respected by a unique and specialized bargaining agent, but this is the creep of other unions trying to then subsume or affiliate, and I don't see that being in the members' interests at all. It clearly runs contrary to the survey and to the intention of Bill C-7, so we'll be opposing both amendments for that reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Blaikie.

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

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I hate this, but I'm just going to ask the analyst a question.

I don't remember hearing this request from any of the organizations that came forward—

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

Actually, if I may, in the MPPAC submission there is a section called “Proposed amendment on affiliation”. I'll save the committee's time by not reading it out, but there's an entire section on affiliation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Right. I didn't remember that. Thank you.

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

A lot of the wording for this comes right out of the MPPAC submission. It's not anything to do with the steelworkers—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay. I just wanted to check that.

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

—conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Di Iorio.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to reply briefly.

I understand Mr. Blaikie's comment, but, while he mentioned clarifying the amendment, he does not mention the lack of the right to affiliation, or that he is defining affiliation, and doing so restrictively. That is why I cannot support his amendment.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Maybe in an attempt to reconcile the two positions, I'll say that in a very general sense this is the introduction of a significant culture change into the RCMP and its operating environment. It's a judicially mandated imposition or insertion of a culture change, welcome in many respects but nonetheless judicially mandated.

I think it's very important that there be lots of interpretive room for the respective boards and tribunals to figure out what it means to be affiliated, to take into account the unique nature of the force but also the interests of the members. To be overly restrictive, not necessarily in the sense of going down a prescribed path but just in the sense of fettering the discretion of the boards that will look at the legislation ultimately....

I think it may be better to move in a direction of leaving interpretive room as this culture gains traction and gains buy-in from both management and labour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Can you summarize your summary?

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

As a quick response, I am sympathetic. Perhaps on other amendments I'll be making a similar argument, an argument that we should leave more interpretive room to the collective bargaining process and to arbitrators. However, in this case, it's exactly because of the types of concerns raised by Mr. Di Iorio and Mr. O'Toole, which I thoroughly respect—that is, the independence of this organization—that I think we do actually need some language.

We wouldn't want the interpretation happening at the arbitration level to permit situations that might actually bring that independence into question. This is a way to give clarity and protect the independence of some future RCMP union, but it would also make it clear that not all kinds of what may be construed as affiliation are impermissible.

I make no apologies for the fact that this amendment does try to define affiliation for the purpose of protecting the independence of that organization and then shows where there is room to engage in other kinds of activities that might otherwise be construed as affiliation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Liberal members on the committee have made very strong arguments for why this is something that can be interpreted by the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. Not only is there jurisprudence on the word, there is also an opportunity to learn as the new culture change happens.

I want to point out another concern that I have about this potential amendment. It is that by being overly specific in the definition of “affiliation”, we risk not capturing other inappropriate affiliations. For example, it's not that I'm suggesting that this will happen, but there could be a situation in which an RCMP employee association exercises control over another organization not involved in police matters. This also would create that vulnerability in terms of the RCMP members needing to do their job without having divided loyalties. By being overly specific, you actually open the door to inappropriate affiliations that you haven't specified rather than allowing the board to make a determination as needed on a case-by-case basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

I'm sensing the steam going out of this discussion. I'm going to test that as I want to make sure you have a chance to speak, but if I don't hear any more questions, I'm going to call the vote.

With respect to the first NDP amendment to clause 33, shall the amendment carry?

All in favour?

Would you like a recorded vote? Okay.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

I'm going to suggest we move quite quickly to the second NDP amendment on clause 33. I think the discussion that we have just had on the first amendment probably applies to the second one. If you are prepared, I would ask if we can go to a vote on it.

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

I'll say a couple of quick words, if you don't mind.

First of all, I'll emphasize again that this is something that actually came out of submissions by the MPPAC. I would say that there are some concerns about affiliation and the independence of the organization if it enters into agreements with other organizations, as the way the law is written right now there will be a question about whether a new union can enter into some kind of service contract or other agreement with a union.

However, that is not the case with a commercial lease. We're not asking about the RCMP union renting space from a landlord and thereby putting the independence of that organization in question because they now have a debt to pay to their landlord or something like that. I don't see why it would be different if they're contracting for services with the union. Just because it's another union doesn't create any more conflict of loyalty than with a landlord or other commercial service providers.

The problem with the legislation right now is that it discriminates against other unions as potential offerers of goods or services. Mysteriously, we're not concerned then about contracts with other organizations that may well also wish to exert an influence over that organization. I think there's a serious disjunct there.

I would say in response to the parliamentary secretary that I am frankly less concerned about the RCMP union exerting control over other organizations. That happens in the real world. What's important about these amendments is that they protect the RCMP union, which represents the people who are authorized to use force, from having pressures exerted on them. I do think there's a qualitative distinction there. I think it's the one that Mr. Di Iorio very eloquently put earlier.

If we accept that argument, then it's not a bidirectional road. We're more concerned about how it goes in one direction than in the other. We're more concerned about the organization that represents people who are authorized to use force having pressure exerted on them than pressure through a service agreement or other commercial arrangement that they might be exerting on someone else.

That's my response to some of the other points that were out there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

I'm very confused by what it says in here, that the new RCMP union can't rent space from someone. Am I missing something?

Unions rent space all the time to other unions and to businesses, so where does it say in here that they can't do that?

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

It's the vagueness around the term “affiliation”. That was the concern expressed by the MPPAC. It was that “affiliation” isn't defined in this act, which means it's open to definition.

If we take affiliation in its sort of basic semantic sense, it's some sort of association or relationship, so without further definition, “affiliation” could mean potentially any kind of association or relationship. That's why I say it's it's meant to be in the section that provides greater clarity. It's just to specify here is what it's not, or here is what it is.

It would be anything that constitutionally joins that group to another group. It would be anything that puts it underneath. It would be anything that allows another organization to exercise a substantial degree of control, direction, or restriction. Once we know that, then things that don't engage those clauses would be seen as acceptable forms of affiliation.

It's a problem of vagueness. It's not that those arrangements are explicitly precluded from the legislation; it's that that's how it could come to be interpreted. From my point of view, that's something that will hang over the head of a start-up of a union that's looking to resource itself across the country. It's not like it's starting in one local. It is different. It's not like it's starting in a factory that will be the only place where it has to serve its members. It's going to have serve members across the entire country, in some of the most remote corners, and it's going to need to figure out how to have the resources to do that.

As the act reads right now, someone could bring a decertification action against them if they do rent space, and then that would be another headache they would have to deal with. It's expensive, because now that's going to be litigated. All of that distracts from them actually getting on with the job of representing RCMP members. I think we could do them a favour now by providing clarity on what affiliation means so there's less of that kind of risk as they prepare to represent RCMP members.