Mr. Speaker, I really do not get the picture when it comes to the motion put forward by the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve or the support that the member for Bellechasse has given on his behalf
and on behalf of the handful of RCMP members who would like to see a union. For the most part, I believe it is only Quebec members who seek a union for RCMP officers.
I have a letter which was written to me a short time ago on request from RCMP representatives. I would like to read that letter because it explains the viewpoint of the approximately 16,000 RCMP officers, apart from those the member Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is referring to who seek unionization.
The letter represents the thinking of a group of representatives from 22 different divisions and districts within the RCMP across the country. It states:
"I cannot emphasize enough that the members supporting unionization and/or associating with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are few in number when compared to the overall numbers of members serving in the force today. The spokespeople for these individuals reside primarily in Quebec and Ontario-". Those seeking the unionization fall basically within those two provinces. "-with a small following in the lower mainland of British Columbia. They boast approximately 2,000 members of our some 17,000 members nationally". It is very small representation according to the member who has put the motion forward.
"There is also some debate as to the accuracy of that figure, as some would argue that there are fewer than 2,000 presently paying dues to the various fledgling associations in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and the national capital region. Other attempts at starting up associations which support collective bargaining have failed in other provinces. In fact, member surveys conducted by our representatives in both Manitoba and New Brunswick have revealed only a relative few who support such a notion". I believe that is supportive of what the member for Wetaskiwin pointed out earlier.
"Our present system of employee representation is the division staff relations representative system (DSRR). The foundation of this process can be found at section 96 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act regulations". I am sure the member knows that.
"Presently there are 28 representatives duly elected by the members from across Canada and one represented who we have elected internally to represent our interests in the area of compensation".
This letter is signed by some of those divisional representatives, but there are names of others who support the contents of the letter which appear here. They number 22 out of 28.
"You will note on pages following this document that it bears the signatures of the representatives and a number of members represented by each representative". Some have signed on behalf of those who actually do the representations. "The overwhelming majority of those are opposed to the notions put forward by the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. None of these gentlemen have been consulted in any way concerning this motion and notwithstanding any claim the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve may advance, there has been no consultative process conducted by the individual members who approached the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to the rank and file membership of the force".
The member is dancing a jig and there is no music. Very few people within the rank and file are supporting the motion put forward.
"You will hear from the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve that some of the individuals who have contacted him are also duly elected representatives". The writers of the document acknowledge that. "That is true. What is also true is that those duly elected representatives have likely failed themselves to consult with the majority of the very members whom they represent to obtain the mandate necessary for the actions they are taking. These are the very same representatives who have chosen to closely align themselves with the Canadian Police Association, CPA, who as you know is a lobby group who represent most unionized police departments in the country, which does not include the RCMP". Their support comes from the CPA to continue this push.
"Even if unionization were to be appropriate for the RCMP, open dialogue and input from all members would have to occur before any such action could be considered". It is not coming from the membership at large but a handful of individuals out of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and some out of British Columbia who have approached this member.
"We take great offence not only at the action of these individuals but also any motion made in the House of Commons that may affect the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would be made by a member of Parliament who supports breaking up the very country for whose citizens we work so hard keeping safe in their homes and communities".
Those are the comments from the following representatives: Sergeant Bruce Morrison, E division, B.C., Staff Sergeant Hugh Stewart, E division, B.C.; Staff Sergeant Doug Howarth, E division, B.C.; Corporal Tim Kennedy, E division, B.C.; Corporal Peter McLaren, E division, B.C.; Sergeant Rick Dinwoodie, E division, B.C.; Sergeant Rick Neville, K division, Alta.; Corporal Joe Mitchell, K division, Alta.; Sergeant Don Taylor, F division, Sask.; Staff Sergeant Randy Thompson, F division, Sask.; Staff Sergeant Reg Trowell, D division, Man.; Staff Sergeant Pat Dauk, D division, Man.; Sergeant Bernie Bengevin, J division, N.B.; Staff Sergeant Brian Flannagan, H division, N.S.; Staff Sergeant Murray Brown, H division, N.S.; Staff Sergeant Roy Hill, B division, Nfld.; Staff Sergeant Dave MacDonald, HQ Ottawa, Ont.; Staff Sergeant Ron Lewis, HQ Ottawa, Ont,; Staff Sergeant Brian Cook, Depot division; Sergeant Glen Morash, G division, N.W.T.; Sergeant
Graham Marrion, M division, YT and Staff Sergeant Kevin MacDougall, RCMP Pay Counsel.
That is the representation that seeks not to support this member's action or his bill.
I believe the member is taking advantage of a situation and has not clearly researched it by those who have approached him and do not represent the membership at large of the-