Debates of Oct. 2nd, 1996

Canada Labour Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

I know the Parliamentary Secretary. He is awfully predictable.

In a while, he will stand up and tell us: "Yes, but there is already a process for representational purposes and nothing indicates that they want this process expanded."

I am telling this to put off the Parliamentary Secretary: let us give the RCMP and its employees a legislative framework and leave it to them to take advantage of it. I hope the government will not go on doing nothing, that it will listen attentively and will act to help workers who are victims of discrimination even when faced with a problem.

Let us take a concrete example. Let us look at what happened. As we know, the government is proud to have promoted bilingualism in the public service through all sorts of measures, and the parliamentary secretary believes in this principle.

The commissioner-and this is nothing personal-became an institution through an act of Parliament and was both judge and judged regarding bilingual bonuses. Under this program, when a public servant passes a written and oral test, he is eligible to a bonus of $800. This is not a huge amount, but it is better than nothing.

These workers suffered a prejudice because it was claimed they were not entitled to the bonus, even though the courts ruled in their favour. What did the government do to correct the situation? Rarely does one witness such a lack of sensitivity. The government introduced a bill in which it took a malicious pleasure in legislating

that these workers were clearly not covered by the Public Service of Canada Act or the Canada Labour Code, in spite of the fact that some, mostly Quebecers living in Quebec, are bilingual and were deprived of this bilingual bonus. Such an anomaly would not exist if things were more clear.

Let us talk about the right to unionize. In a democracy, what is the point of having a charter of rights and freedoms? What is the point of boasting about freedom of association and pay equity for all, if this type of discrimination is being perpetuated? If RCMP officers were covered by part I of the Canada Labour Code, the employer would face reprisals if it objected to its employees forming a union. Indeed, the employer cannot interfere if the conditions regarding the application for union certification and the related process are met.

We must keep this in mind when we discuss issues such as this one.

How does the parliamentary secretary intend to restore good working relations in such a sensitive milieu as the RCMP if we deny these workers the fundamental right that all the other public servants in Canada enjoy?

If we were holding a meeting here tonight, not with members of Parliament, but with RCMP employees, can you imagine what would happen? How could one of us explain to these workers who pay taxes, get up every morning, take an oath and serve their fellow citizens, that they do not have the right to sit at the bargaining table and negotiate their working conditions, that they do not have the right to have their grievances heard by a third party, unlike the rest of the public servants? How can we explain that and how can we remain so stubborn when inquiry after inquiry comes to the same conclusion as the most recent report. That report does not date back to the year 1992 before Christ, it is the Sims Report that was tabled last January. The Sims Report, which I have the pleasure to quote quite often in this House, recognizes that these workers are being wronged.

So, I hope that my colleagues both from the government side and from the Reform Party as well as the Bloc members will try to put an end to this type of discrimination.

The one thing we should keep in mind at a time like this is that there are still eight Canadian provinces who retain the services of RCMP officers for policing purposes.

If the government could come up with some examples or if the parliamentary secretary were to rise in this House and say: "Yes, but I would like to tell the hon. member about a police force in Canada that is excluded from the rights that some are asking for", I would really be shaken. I will say that there is something wrong in my rationale, that my arguments were not convincing enough, that there is a lack of information. But it is not the case. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the parliamentary secretary, who I know is always looking for new challenges. I challenge him, before the Canadian people, to give us an example of a similar police force.

The parliamentary secretary will have to do his homework well, but if he can give us an example of another police force that is denied the right to collective bargaining and that does not belong to a union, I will be contrite. I will rise on a point of order and admit that I was wrong.

But I know perfectly well that the parliamentary secretary will not find one such example because it is well known that this is a case of discrimination, that the RCMP is in a unique situation.

In conclusion, you know that the government will embark on a review of part I of the Labour Code, that there will be a parliamentary committee on which I will sit, and I think we must use this debate to get the government to say that it is willing to give the RCMP the right to unionize and to bargain collectively to finally put an end to a flagrant and unacceptable case of discrimination.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion put before the House by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

I am sure that the hon. member's motion is prompted by concern for the welfare and well-being of the membership of the RCMP-a concern that I can assure him I and our government share.

We are only too aware of the RCMP's crucial role as Canada's national police service and of the need to support RCMP members in their professional duties and to ensure their personal welfare.

For example, the government recently introduced Bill C-52 in this House. This amendment to the RCMP Superannuation Act will ensure that RCMP members serving outside Canada in "special duty areas" are automatically considered to be on duty 24 hours a day, and therefore will receive complete benefit coverage.

The government introduced this bill because it realizes that RCMP members serving their country in a peacekeeping mission, in hazardous areas, should not have to worry about their own or their families' well-being. This is an example of the kind of practical and meaningful action this government is taking on behalf of the women and men of the RCMP.

Through various initiatives, our government is committed to improving the safety and security of Canadians, and, at the same time, to helping the police, including the RCMP, do a better job. We want to ensure that the police have the tools they need to carry out their professional duties.

Let me give you a few examples. We have instituted tougher measures for sex offenders who victimize children. We have created a national system for screening applicants for paid or volunteer positions where, once again, work with children is involved. We have amended the Young Offenders Act to provide for tougher sentences. We have reformed the sentencing process to

ensure more consistency and to give greater emphasis to public safety and the needs of victims.

The safety and security of Canadians has been a priority of the government since it took office. I have given but a very few examples of its initiatives. However some people, such as the hon. member ask the question: Why has the government not made the unionization of the RCMP a priority? It is a fair question.

The RCMP is our national police service and as such it operates national programs that are used by other law enforcement agencies and police forces in every part of the country. These are special services that no other police service in Canada can provide.

I will give some examples as the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve asked me to do. The RCMP maintains the national crime computers, including the Canadian Police Information Centre that feeds into most other police forces and patrol cars in Canada. The RCMP runs the national forensic crime laboratories and provides forensic services, again to police jurisdictions throughout the country.

The RCMP also operates the source witness protection program which can assist other police jurisdictions with the relocation of witnesses and sources throughout Canada. As we all know, Canada is a signatory to a number of international agreements and conventions and our international reputation depends on the RCMP providing never ending protection to embassies and diplomats across Canada.

The RCMP provides protection for prominent people while visiting Canada, visiting heads of state and governments, the Governor General, supreme court justices and even the Parliament Hill area.

The RCMP given its respected international reputation, has also been called on by the United Nations to provide civilian peacekeeping in various locations around the globe including the former Yugoslavia and Haiti.

Clearly, the RCMP is not just any police force. No other agency could provide all the services that I have just mentioned. Without exaggeration, a work action by the RCMP could become a matter of life or death.

We place great importance on the safety of Canadians who rely on the services of the RCMP. That is not to say that the government ignores the rights of the RCMP membership. Far from it. The government realizes that, where a union does not exist to represent federal employees, then there is a special obligation to listen to those employees and to ensure that there is an effective system for addressing workplace issues.

That is why the RCMP has a system of employee representation. This very progressive system is known as the Division Staff Relations Program. The backbone of the Div-Rep program, as it is known, are the 29 representatives elected by regular and civilian members of the RCMP. The Div-Reps regularly meet with division Commanding Officers and also, on a national basis, with the RCMP Commissioner to represent the membership.

The informal nature of the Div-Rep program promotes access to the top management of the RCMP and even to the Solicitor General. If relations were dominated by a formal and legally binding collective agreement, I wonder if this kind of access could still continue.

Many members strongly believe that the co-operative approach which the Div-Rep program offers has been highly effective in advancing the interests of the membership and in finding workable and practical solutions to the members' concerns. For example, the Div-Reps played a key role in securing new regulations which provide better occupational health and safety protection for members.

The Div-Reps can also take credit for the successful constable reclassification initiative which was of particular importance in addressing pay level concerns of newer members. The initiative was successful, in part, because Div-Reps could take advantage of the present flexible system.

The Div-Rep system allows the RCMP and the government to quickly manage resources to meet new pressures and needs. This type of timely response would be more difficult under a locked-in collective agreement. In short, the Div-Rep program works, and has worked for many years, efficiently and effectively.

The motion put before this House by the hon. member is well-intentioned but it does not take into account the fact that the RCMP, in the Div-Rep program, has a proven system of representation. It is not clear why there is a need to tamper with a system that is already working well.

The government will continue, as in the past, to support the RCMP in their duties and work with them to resolve workplace issues and, where possible, to improve working conditions.

But we will bear in mind the unique nature of the Force and their crucial role in maintaining the safety and security of Canadians. It is for these reasons that we cannot support the motion before us.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has put forth a motion that calls for the government to give RCMP officers the right to

unionize and to bargain collectively under an act other than the Canada Labour Code.

Of course, he claims to have the best interests of the members of the RCMP at heart, and perhaps we should accept that at face value.

However, we would have to wonder if it is not just a small group of people with personal agendas who he is really out to represent today.

We also have to wonder what the hon. member thinks the RCMP stands to gain from what he has proposed here today. He contends that his motion was a follow up to the Sims report. However, let me read what the recommendation actually states on page 50 of the report:

The government should undertake a process to determine the appropriateness of RCMP officers having the right to organize and to engage in collective bargaining under a statute separate from the Canada Labour Code. Such a process should consider the interests of the members of the RCMP, existing associations of members, management and the public.

Let me say that the Reform Party supports the traditional role of the RCMP as a police force representative of and responsive to the population it serves in Canada's regions. The Reform Party also recognizes the right of workers to organize democratically, bargain collectively and to strike peacefully. However, there is an important distinction to be made between private and public sector collective bargaining.

Strikes in the private sector of course may cause some inconvenience to the public but they are primarily a contest between the employer and the employees. The employer loses profits, the employees lose wages and both sides know that either a prolonged strike or a bad agreement could put the enterprise out of business and could put the employees out of jobs. Incentives exist for both sides to seek a settlement in good faith.

The situation in the public sector is quite different. Because of the monopolistic nature of most public services like the RCMP, alternatives are not readily available in the marketplace.

Is the hon. member, through his motion, proposing that the RCMP should be given the right to strike? He knows all too well that the aim of a public sector is to inconvenience or even endanger the public in the hope that citizens will persuade or pressure the public employer to give into the union's demands. He knows that governments usually do not lose money in a strike. In fact, they save money by not having to pay their employees' wages during the duration of the strike.

Moreover, the member knows that the government plays two conflicting roles. It is not only a player in the collective bargaining process, it is also the supreme rule maker.

As we have witnessed time and again in this House, the government ends public sector strikes by legislating workers back to work. Is that what the member would like to see happen? I rather doubt it.

Members have heard me say repeatedly in the House that the Reform Party supports the final offer selection arbitration process when management impasses jeopardize health, safety or the national economy.

Finally, often arbitration gives labour and management the tools to resolve their differences. Final offer selection does not favour one side over the other and it eliminates the need for government interference in the negotiations. It puts the onus on both sides to reach an agreement and it can be used equally by labour or management to provide a permanent, just and effective settlement.

In preparation for this debate, I contacted members of the RCMP stationed in detachments throughout my constituency to find out what they thought about unions and the bargaining process. I found that there was zero support or enthusiasm for the creation of unions from within the ranks of the RCMP. I think that is a very important element to be considered in debating a bill of this type.

Last year, when RCMP officers appeared before the subcommittee on government operations, they testified that out of the over 1,000 members in Manitoba, only 15 wanted to unionize. In British Columbia, 156 RCMP officers, out of a possible 4,600, attended a meeting organized by union proponents to discuss organizing and half of those 156 left the meeting before it ended.

There is a mechanism within the RCMP to deal with labour-management issues that is part of the RCMP Act regulations. The division staff relations representative program, or DSRR program, has been in place for 20 years and it enjoys the support of the vast majority of members of the force. The officers in each division across the country elect at least one full time representative and two part time representatives.

The RCMP members serving in detachments throughout my constituency indicated to me that they are satisfied with this current arrangement.

Since there is virtually no support in the RCMP for a union, the hon. member's motion seems to me somewhat unnecessary. His efforts and energies might be directed to other areas deserving of his immediate attention. He should be suggesting ways for the government to reduce the debt, eliminate the deficit, balance the budget, give taxpayers like those hard working members of the RCMP a tax break that they most certainly deserve.

If the hon. member is concerned with the plight of the RCMP he would be willing to call for a tougher Young Offenders Act. I believe it would be very frustrating for an RCMP officer to

continually collar these people who are given a rap on the knuckles and then turned loose.

The hon. member would be advocating a get tough on crime agenda like the zero tolerance policies the Reform Party is proposing. He would be calling for a referendum on capital punishment for first degree murder for those who kill police officers and find out if there is support, and I suggest there is, in Canada for exactly that, capital punishment for first degree murder.

If the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve were really interested in the well-being of RCMP officers, he would focus on issues that are of concern to the members of the force, concerns that we hear when talking to the members of the force on a daily basis.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

The issue of giving RCMP officers the right to unionize is not a new one. In fact, more recently, since my hon. friend went much further back in history, it goes back to the Gingras decision handed down in March 1994 which established that RCMP officers were entitled to the bilingualism bonus. To reach this conclusion, the Federal Court of Canada had to establish that RCMP officers were part of the public service.

It is immediately clear what the consequences are of the ruling in the Gingras case: if RCMP officers are part of the public service, they are also subject to other legislation that governs members of the public service, and more specifically, the Canada Labour Code and part I of the Canada Labour Code, which confers the right to unionize.

Of course the Gingras decision was not about the right to unionize, so the Federal Court of Canada did not have to rule specifically on that right. By inference, one can at least argue, since that is what is being argued today before the Quebec Court of Appeal, that RCMP officers have the right to unionize. An additional ground is based on the Canadian Charter of 1982, namely that the right of association includes the right to unionize. But we should let the courts rule on that issue.

Meanwhile, what did the government do following the Gingras case? It could have very conveniently taken the case to the Supreme Court, something this government seems very fond of doing. But no, it did not. It tabled a bill in the House. This was Bill C-58, at the time, which, after the House was prorogued, was tabled again as Bill C-30.

This bill is a declaratory bill. In other words, the government is acting like a court. It did not go to the Supreme Court to ask

whether RCMP officers are really part of the public service and subject to the Canada Labour Code.

No. The government is handing down the decision the Supreme Court might have handed down or the decision the government would have liked the Supreme Court to hand down.

In the declaratory provision included in Bill C-58, which has become Bill C-30, the government is saying that, for greater certainty, RCMP officers are not part of the public service and therefore that the Canada Labour Code does not apply to them. Nice way to exclude them.

What the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve said earlier is characteristic of what is going on in Canada. The RCMP operates and does a tremendous job at the federal level and in eight provinces.

As a member of the government operations committee which reviewed Bill C-58, I can tell you however that there is a deep malaise within the RCMP. It seems to me that the present system of representation by divisional representatives is not working or working poorly. There appear to be at least two diverging views. On one hand, we have the RCMP command telling us that everything is working fine, and on the other, we have members and members' representatives telling us that it is not working. There are two sides to the coin.

For my part, I have reasonable doubt that the system is not working; the RCMP commissioner who, to all intents and purposes, is a separate employer can send a dispute to arbitration and chose to abide or not by the adjudicator's decision.

Listen, if I prosecute you in a civil court and win, you will have no choice, I will have the decision enforced. Willy nilly, you will have to abide by it. This is one element that is missing. If, in our society, one party in any civil suit could escape the application of a ruling against it, we would have a pretty strange judicial system.

That is exactly the kind of system that members of the RCMP have to deal with. We do not want to force them into unionization. We want them to have the legal framework required so they may chose freely whether they want a union or not.

Earlier, I heard my colleague, the member for Wetaskiwin, say that in his region, several officers told him they did not want to be unionized, that very few had attended the briefing meeting. This reminds me of Quebec, a long time ago, when unions were not very popular and when, if people were present at information sessions on unionization, a trustee or some other official would take down their names to be sure their contract would not be extended or they would be made to change schools if they were too vocal.

Clearly, there is no legislative framework which governs these things; no one can impose sanctions if an employer hampers the fair and usual process of requesting union certification. It is quite easy to understand why the officers will not go to the meetings.

But the best way to find out is to give them their legal framework, to apply to them Part I of the Canada Labour Code, with one major exception. Contrary to what was said earlier, contrary to what my good friend, the hon. member for Vaudreuil, was saying earlier, the right to strike was never requested in any way for officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; they are not asking it themselves.

In a properly working society, with the exemplary work that RCMP officers do, this right, I believe, must not be recognized. But should we go for mandatory arbitration, a final offer? This is a system that can be discussed for a long time. But the right to strike must not be granted at that level, and neither for the Sûreté du Québec or the OPP in Ontario.

They must have the right to free bargaining, to confronting ideas, to negotiating, to making compromises, to improving a climate. The climate must be improved, otherwise the pressure will build up and things will get out of hand in the RCMP. We will end up with a service in which things are as bad as with CSIS, where just about everything is rotten. We cannot get information, whether it is from the director of the service, or from the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is supposed to monitor CSIS but rarely reports to us, particularly to the sub-committee on national security, on which I have the honour of sitting, along with the hon. member for Vaudreuil, whose riding may soon be called Vaudreuil-Soulanges. These are the reasons.

The best way to solve the issue is to provide a legislative framework in which officers will be allowed to vote. Let them decide, through a vote, whether they want to unionize or not, whether they want to form an association.

If the vote is negative but takes place within an appropriate legislative framework, it will be respected, just like the no vote was respected in Quebec, on October 30, 1995. If the vote is affirmative, it will be respected because the Canada Labour Code will apply. We do not want to force anyone to join a union, but the reverse should also be true, in that we should not prevent people who want to form a union from doing so.

The best way to proceed-and that is what the hon. member for Vaudreuil is indicating and he would probably like to have another chance to speak to correct a few statements he made earlier, because I think the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has seriously shaken him, and when he gets an opportunity to do so he might change his mind. As for me I would be willing to let him change what he said if he wants to-but the best way to proceed would be to let people vote.

As it will be for us in the next elections in the riding of Vaudreuil and in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, and probably in your riding too, Mr. Speaker, there will be several candidates, people will put an X beside a name and we will count up the votes. Everything is organized. Election officers, returning officers and clerks, are appointed, the system is there and working.

People are not told in advance that they have to select this or that person to represent them. People make their decision. Fundamentally, let us apply to unionizing the electoral system that is applied in Canada.

Let us ask the members of the RCMP if they want the Canada Labour Code applied or not. If they say no, the problem will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Some members claim that they do not want to form a trade union. If they say yes, then the Canada Labour Code will of course apply, but without the right to strike. I will not fight for the right to strike for policemen in Canada.

One thing seemed strange to me. When I asked at RCMP headquarters, during consideration of Bill C-58 in committee, the only reason given to me for the opposition there to unionization was that RCMP officers do work not done by any other police force in Canada.

I asked for examples. They said the protection of ambassadors. It is true. For example, here in Ottawa, the RCMP is responsible for the protection of ambassadors. I was told that it is also responsible, or is supposed to be responsible, for the safety of the Prime Minister's residence.

It is also true that, in Toronto and Quebec City, two provincial capitals, the OPP and the Sûreté du Québec are responsible for the protection of the consular corps. The activities of the consulates are exactly the same as those of the embassies. So, if that is the only distinction, let the members of the RCMP be treated just like their colleagues of the Sûreté du Québec, the police of the Montreal Urban Community and the OPP. Let them enjoy the same benefits as their counterparts in the provinces and cities.

I would even go farther. On the government operations committee, my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley put forward an amendment to Bill C-58 whereby part II of the Canada Labour Code would apply to the RCMP and give its members occupational health and safety protection. I was the only one to support her proposal, which was rejected by the three members of the government on the committee. Why should we refuse to give occupational health and safety protection to the members of the RCMP?

That said, I will take my seat to allow my colleague who moved the motion to make a nice conclusion.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

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-

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was courteous in this debate and I never questioned anybody's intentions. I will not permit my colleague to question the quality of my research and my work, and I ask him to apologize for the unkind remarks he made about me.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think this is clearly a matter of debate between the member who is proposing the motion and the member who just spoke.

The member who just spoke has one minute left to conclude his remarks, then the other member will have three minutes to respond.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that union organizers have attempted to take over the RCMP. Their elections have failed to win the support of rank and file officers. Then without consulting rank and file officers in the field, these organizers came to this member to try to unionize through a motion put forward in Parliament. It is obvious there is not the support.

This motion is ill conceived and there is very little support by rank and file officers for unionization in any form. I would say to the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to leave well enough alone.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are approximately three minutes left. If the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve wishes to summarize and close the debate, there being no other speakers standing, he is entitled to do that.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Reform Party was unable to speak on the essence of the motion but spoke only on the form of it, as is its detestable habit.

I do not claim-and I want my Reform colleagues to be clear on this-that all RCMP workers supported this motion. What I say to my Reform friend, and I challenge him to prove me wrong on this, is that there is a group of some 3,000 people who want a different representation system.

One would have to be extremely obtuse and dull-witted to claim, as does the Reform member, that the people who want unionization and collective bargaining right do not represent anyone. Reform members should be a little more open and better informed. There is something structural there that has to do with their capacity for greater generosity. I have no illusion that all this will change.

But essentially, I think we have the right as parliamentarians to speak up in this House without being falsely accused and say there is a labour relations problem, that there may be a number of solutions to this problem and that one of them might be the right to unionize without the right to strike.

This must be very clear. None of the workers we are talking about here tonight has asked for the right to strike. These workers are well aware of the fact that, considering the nature of their functions, it would not be in the best interest of Canadians that they have the right to strike. What must be recognized is that peace in the work place will be achieved with a negotiated and debated document, approved by everyone and called a collective agreement.

What is clear also is that the workers have the right to associate in a system other than the one that prevails. I am annoyed that this debate has given the Reform members the opportunity to make such detestable accusations.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I continue my speech, I shall, if I may, pay tribute to ex-Premier of Quebec Robert Bourassa, who died today.

I arrived from Chile in Montreal with my family in 1974, when he headed the Quebec government. I had fled a dictatorship and immediately realized he was a great democrat, who showed a great deal of respect for dissenting opinions. He was also very open to ethnic communities. I want to pay tribute to his courage in politics and in dealing with his terrible illness. I also want to extend my condolences to the Bourassa family.

On June 4 this year, I put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration about the government's plans to eliminate the citizenship rights of children born in Canada of parents who are not citizens. I said that a measure of this kind would be a direct attack on the children of claimants of refugee status or persons already recognized as refugees by Canada.

In an interview published in the Toronto Star last May, the minister suggested that Canada might remove the automatic right to citizenship of children born on Canadian territory. This statement aroused a great deal of criticism, especially from the Canadian Council of Refugees. One hundred and eight organizations wrote to the minister to express their objections.

These organizations included the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Bureau de la Communauté chrétienne des Haïtiens de Montréal, the TCA, the Collectif des femmes immigrantes du Québec, the Canadian Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Hispanic Congress, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the Canadian Arab Federation, the Jesuit Refugee Service, the Table de concertation de Montréal des organismes au service des réfugiés, the Vancouver Refugee Council, the Vigil Toronto Refugee Assistance Organization, and so forth.

Under current legislation, except for the children of foreign diplomats, anyone born on Canadian soil automatically becomes a Canadian citizen. Most nations adhere to the jus soli or law of the soil principle and grant citizenship to anyone born within their borders. Most countries, including Canada, also recognize they have an obligation to reduce the number of stateless people.

Until now, Canada has granted citizenship to the Canadian-born children of refugee claimants. The jus soli or law of the soil therefore represents a basic principle in the definition of citizenship in Canada and reflects the values of Canada and Quebec in this area.

During the consultations carried out in 1994 by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I am a vice-chairman, I asked departmental officials to provide us with statistics on the number of children born to persons who were not Canadian citizens. They were unable to give us exact figures. All they could say was that approximately 400 children were in this situation. The problem therefore is really not of such a magnitude as to require a legislative amendment and changes to a basic principle-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time has run out.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has the floor. 1910-3

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit the question of the member for Bourassa is a bit puzzling. He knows full well we are examining all aspects of the citizenship issue. This includes citizenship for children born in Canada.

Furthermore, the hon. member knows this because he is on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, as he has just stated, and the committee recommended that children born in Canada should be Canadian citizens only if one or both of their parents is a permanent resident or Canadian citizen.

I am particularly surprised that the hon. member is showing such concern over recommendation number 12 of the standing committee report, especially since there was no dissenting opinion on this particular recommendation from the Bloc Quebecois member of the committee when the report was submitted.

It should be of no surprise to anyone, in particular a member of that committee, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration takes the standing committee's advice and opinions very seriously.

The government, however, has made no final decisions regarding proposed amendments to current citizenship legislation. We are still in the process of reconciling issues brought forward from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and by the Canadian public. It is important that a consensus be reached on a number of issues.

Let me assure all members of the House that when decisions are taken on these important issues they will be informed.

Next year is the 50th anniversary of our citizenship. This will be a welcomed opportunity for everyone in this House and for Canadians across the country to celebrate the common bonds which unite us all. I know we are all eagerly anticipating this very special milestone in the life of our country.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, the motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

(The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.)