Debates of March 22nd, 2016

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Regina—Lewvan for his kind words about my father.

There is one point I will make to him, and I say this in all seriousness. I am not trying to be flippant or rude, but he should know, now that he represents it, that RCMP Depot is pronounced “deh-po”, not “dee-po”. If he speaks with any members of the RCMP, current or past—and we have members in this place—they will make that distinction very clearly. He would be insulting members of the RCMP if he went onto their grounds and spoke about the great work that dee-po does, because it is not dee-po; it is deh-po. That is point number one.

Second, I would just simply point out to my friend and colleague that we are not saying we are against collective bargaining whatsoever. We are just saying that whatever votes should be taken should be done in a secret environment. What is wrong with determining whether or not members want to be unionized by letting them vote in a secret environment?

Let us get rid of the intimidation. We can probably share stories, on both the management side and the union side, of intimidation and pressure tactics that have been used over the years. We are both very familiar with that. To avoid that is a simple solution: allow members to determine their own fate by a secret ballot. That is all we are saying.

That is all Bill C-525 did. It was to amend the Canada Labour Code to allow members to determine their own fate for collective bargaining by a secret ballot. Absolutely nothing is wrong with that, in my view.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am clearly not speaking enough, as it were.

It is amazing that here in the 21st century there are still some people who do not think we should have a secret ballot. We give secret ballots in every other situation. We, on this side of the House, would say that they should be available for working men and women as well.

The parliamentary secretary talked about having a choice of a secret ballot being left to an external panel. What about the guarantee of a secret ballot, a guarantee that every elector has in every other kind of election? Does the member not think that a worker should have not just the possibility of a secret ballot but a guarantee that a secret ballot will actually take place?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague, who is new to this place, that he is having adequate time to speak, and I am sure over the intervening years we will become very familiar with his presentation skills.

I agree totally with my friend and colleague. It should be a right, not a privilege but a right, to be able to vote in a secret environment. For the life of me, I cannot understand how members in this place could take any other position.

I point out, again, the patently obvious: every single person in this place was elected by a secret ballot. Do they think it would be appropriate to go into a federal general election and stand in a crowded room and ask people to please stand up and be counted, letting people see exactly how they are going to vote? That is absolutely unthinkable.

Apparently, according to the government, in a union environment, that should be the norm. I could not agree with my friend and colleague more. Secret balloting should be a right, not a privilege, not an option.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, let us recognize why we have Bill C-7 here today. The Supreme Court of Canada made a decision, which in essence said that the RCMP, an institution we all hold very dear to our hearts, needed to be afforded the opportunity for a free collective bargaining process. As a result, we have legislation now that has been introduced by the Government of Canada in recognition of how important it is that we bring it about in a timely fashion.

I understand the passion with which the member talks with regard to Bill C-7, with respect to the secret ballots. I heard many of the very same arguments with regard to Bill C-4.

I would suggest to the member that he allow these pieces of legislation to go to committee—as Bill C-4 has done and, hopefully, Bill C-7 will to too, in a timely fashion—recognizing what we really want to do is to set the framework, something that RCMP officers from coast to coast to coast have been asking for: that is, the ability to have negotiations, free negotiations, which is something in which the Supreme Court has concurred.

I wonder if he could say something positive about the legislation, in terms of answering the call of the RCMP officers in responding to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I said many times in my earlier remarks, we believe that the majority of provisions contained in Bill C-7 are good. In fact, I think if the member took the time to really do a lot of research, he would find out very quickly that some draft legislation that our previous Conservative government was planning on introducing, but we got caught up by time, was eerily similar to the provisions contained in Bill C-7, except for one major provision, which is that the government does not want to allow secret ballots; we would allow them.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today in the House in support of Bill C-7. In my riding of London North Centre we have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Ontario headquarters, as well as the RCMP London, Ontario, detachment. Combined, these two offices have approximately 165 regular members. Many of these individuals are my constituents, I am proud to say.

I am also very proud of the work these men and women do in keeping Canadians safe every single day. With that in mind, it is an honour to be part of this debate and take a stand on behalf of these men and women, the members and reservists of the RCMP.

The bill before us today would uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. I emphasize that point. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years, but it is a right that has been denied to the members and reservists of the RCMP, individuals who over the last 143 years have contributed so much to our proud, strong, and free nation. This bill would rectify that issue.

This bill is a clear and reasoned response to the Supreme Court ruling of January 16, 2015. The court affirmed in that decision that subsection 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests”. The court also determined that, “the current labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence”.

It is, therefore, my pleasure to support this bill today, a bill that would provide RCMP members and reservists with freedom of choice and independence from management while still recognizing their unique operational reality. The bill in question is a product of careful consideration of the result of consultations with key stakeholders, the first with regular members of the RCMP and the second with provinces, territories, and municipalities that have policing agreements with the RCMP.

Bill C-7 has a number of important features, and I will now go over those briefly.

It would provide for independent binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process for bargaining impasses. Consistent with other police forces across this country, the members of the RCMP bargaining unit would not be permitted to strike. This was the strong preference of those who participated in the online consultation.

The bill would also provide for a single national bargaining unit composed solely of RCMP members appointed to a rank and reservists; and the RCMP bargaining agent, should one be certified, would have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. Again, regular members showed clear support for these provisions. The bill would also exclude officers appointed to the ranks of inspector and above from representation. Finally, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be the administrative tribunal for collective bargaining matters related to the RCMP bargaining units, as well as grievances related to a collective agreement.

The bill before us today is consistent with our government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country. Take, for instance, Bill C-5, which would repeal division 20 of Bill C-59, the 2015 budget implementation bill, tabled last April by the previous government. It gave the government the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system onto the public service.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act was originally passed in 1967 to give public servants the right to unionize and bargain collectively. It is fundamental to ensuring collaborative efforts between the parties and to improving the ability of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

I have many public service employees in my riding of London North Centre. In fact, I had the privilege of meeting with some of their leadership last week and they made their voices heard.

The actions of the previous government, to unilaterally impose a new sick leave system while ignoring the collective bargaining process, were unfortunate and disrespectful. Our government made it clear that we would not be party to an approach that disregards the process of negotiation between an employer and a group of employees aimed at reaching agreements on the terms and conditions of employment. By repealing those provisions in Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process.

We believe in collective bargaining, and the bill before us today honours our belief in this right. We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations, yet over the last few years, many fundamental labour rights have been rolled back. We can just look at Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which would both have changed how unions could be certified and decertified, and would place new financial reporting requirements on them.

These bills were passed without the traditional employer, union, and government consultation process used for labour relations law reform. The result has been that it is now more difficult for unions and the employer to bargain collectively in good faith. We need, instead, to ensure that workers can organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in safe environments. To that end, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour has also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Bill C-4 would restore the procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed prior to June 16, 2015. This bill would also amend the Income Tax Act to remove the unnecessary requirements on labour organizations and labour trusts for the public reporting of financial information.

As hon. members are well aware, legislation is already in place to ensure that unions make such financial information available. Section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, for instance, requires unions to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge, rendering these additional reporting requirements unnecessary. The bill before us today is very much in keeping with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations.

Engaging in collective bargaining is a right long exercised by all other police forces in Canada. The bill would respect that right while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force. It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due.

I again would like to thank those members and reservists of the RCMP for their dedicated service to our country. I am proud to have such a strong RCMP presence in my riding of London North Centre, and I commend RCMP members for going to work each and every day with the safety of all Canadians and all Londoners at the forefront of their minds.

To that end, I ask all members to show their support for members and reservists of the RCMP by voting in favour of this bill.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly there are many things in the bill, particularly support for the RCMP and recognizing inherent rights, which I think are important parts of this discussion. However, I want to raise a question and a concern.

I have heard from mayors, both large- and small-city mayors in my riding, who are concerned about the taxpayers' ability to pay for emergency programming. This is usually in relation to fire departments and whatnot, because the collective bargaining process often recognizes that these are very dangerous roles, and often gives them increases that are more than the rate of inflation. I would like to hear what the member's thoughts are, because British Columbia is one of the provinces that actually contracts from the RCMP directly.

One of the things I am concerned about, and these mayors have raised, is that if the emergency service budgets continue to rise in places like British Columbia, what that will do to rural policing, and what that will do to the RCMP in provinces like British Columbia.

Again, I have no answers. I am simply asking for the member's thoughts.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party has a record throughout its history of fiscal responsibility.

As for the concerns about the ability to pay and the ability of this government to take into account costs that the hon. member raised, I point to the fact that under the Liberal Party, Canada has prospered in great ways in terms of financial management.

As far as collective bargaining goes, we have to pay attention to it. It is a fundamental issue in any democracy. We will continue to consult throughout this process with stakeholders throughout this country, whether municipalities, provinces, and certainly the RCMP.

This is a party that believes in consultation and that respected consultation when it came to this particular legislation.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to see that the new Liberal government is supporting collective bargaining. What is unfortunate is that it is not supporting true collective bargaining. The government is not extending the usual rights in this legislation, which is the inclusion of collective bargaining on harassment, staffing, and discipline.

It is clear that the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada specifically requested that at the bargaining table they be able to deal with disciplinary measures and the allocation of resources.

Could the member speak to why the government is reducing the actual rights of collective bargaining to RCMP members? Could the member tell us what issues on harassment have to do with security?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the primary intent of the bill is to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of 2015. That is what the bill is about. We have recognized the importance of the Supreme Court decision, and we are acting in that regard. When the Supreme Court of Canada speaks, the House has a duty to listen. That is what the bill intends to achieve.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member for London North Centre about respecting the work of the RCMP, and about respecting its unique and particular circumstances as Canada's national police force. The member also talked about fair labour relations and the respectful process and content of this legislation.

Given that my colleague has an RCMP headquarters and a detachment in his riding, could he speak a bit more about the individual women and men of the RCMP and why they are deserving of the respect of the House through this legislation?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, public safety has to be at the very core of what any government promotes, and respecting the RCMP speaks to that. Having the ability to stand up and recognize officers who every day put their lives on the line for our safety is a moment of pride for everyone in the House.

The hon. member asked about my experience and my feelings with respect to the Ontario division of the RCMP being headquartered in my riding. It brings me incredible pride. I know many of the members. I have had the opportunity to chat with them about issues relating to the matters we are discussing in the House today. They are looking forward to changes that respect and reflect what the Supreme Court of Canada has asked us to do, and that is what we are doing here today.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of clarity. Earlier the member opposite failed to answer the question from the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I asked the same question earlier. This is neither a comment for or against the unionization of the RCMP, or a comment for or against the Liberals' ability to balance budgets.

In going forward, has the government considered the financial ramifications that this will have on municipalities from coast to coast, or in the eight provinces? Whether in this budget or future budgets, has that been taken into account?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it rather puzzling that Conservative members opposite would raise sympathetic concerns now about municipalities. Under the previous government, we had a decade of federal-provincial-municipal relations that left a lot to be desired. Considering it is budget day, I will be positive.

Going forward, consultation will be at the core of what we do as a government. We take that seriously. Of course, we care about the plight of municipalities, provinces, and the RCMP in that process.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from London North Centre for his excellent speech.

I also want to salute the RCMP. All of us on this side of the House, and throughout the House, care about the men and women in the RCMP. Whatever our perspectives are on this law and the flaws or merits to it, we all agree that the RCMP does a great job.

I ask the hon. member to talk to us a little bit, philosophically, about the importance of collective bargaining and why it is important to bring the right of collective bargaining to the RCMP in response to the Supreme Court judgment.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, collective bargaining is at the core of any democracy. Any democracy will be reflective of particular interests and concerns. These are interests and concerns that often divert. Therefore, if we do not respect the collective bargaining process in any labour relations realm, then we are not living up to that recognition, the recognition that diverging interests, when not taken into account, can lead us astray as a society.

We have to get back to a path of respecting the fact that we all have a particular stake in this society, that we need to be on the same page, and that we can move toward that through collective bargaining.

It is an enshrined principle in any democracy, and I am glad that this government is taking its cue from the Supreme Court of Canada in proposing this particular legislation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate what the member has said about making sure that everyone is onside and supportive.

Before I get to my question, I want to make a comment on something the member said earlier about the previous government not respecting municipalities, not caring for them. When the Liberals were in power for 13 long years, they only provided $1.5 billion to British Columbia in infrastructure funding. In eight of the almost ten years that we were in power, we gave British Columbia $4.5 billion, tripling what the previous government had in done in less time.

The question I ask is, has this member respected municipalities by asking stakeholders, like municipalities, on their opinion of the bill?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, consultation is ongoing. As far as the record of the previous government goes, I have a number: $150 billion in debt. I rest my point on that.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

As the labour critic for the New Democratic Party, it is my pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-7. However, as the labour critic, it is also my duty to rise to point out important aspects of the bill that I see are missing and need to be addressed.

Like many opportunities I have had to stand and speak to labour bills, I commend the Liberal government for moving forward, but I would ask it to move forward a bit faster, sooner, and to address issues that are missing.

The RCMP members have been prohibited from collective bargaining since 1918, and to this day remain the only police force in Canada without the benefit of a collective agreement to regulate and protect their working conditions. As we have heard in the House, 2016 is a good year for many things, and it is a good day for collective bargaining and the rights of working men and women in this country.

For our police officers working in the RCMP, the wait is finally over. Unfortunately, this group of police officers had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to get this right, a right that their fellow officers and working men and women have had for a very long time. Like many victories, it is bittersweet, but it is a victory for these working men and women all the same.

In January 2015, a Supreme Court ruling found that the government had failed to establish permission for meaningful collective bargaining for the RCMP members that would not disrupt the stability of the police force or affect the public perceptions of its neutrality. Therefore in its ruling, it declared that the prohibition of collective bargaining for the RCMP members to be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and gave the previous government one year to modify the legislation. I feel that the previous government showed its disrespect for these workers and this decision by not moving on this, leaving little time after the election to respond. Now we find that the Liberals are looking to push the bill through before the May 16 deadline.

The Supreme Court said that the limits on collective bargaining should be acceptable, if it could be shown that those limits are reasonable, demonstratably justified, and necessary to achieve the goal of maintaining an independent and objective police force.

This, of course, brings us to today and Bill C-7, and to my point about what is missing in the bill for working men and women in the RCMP. We have heard from others who have risen to speak and support the bill, but also from my colleagues on this side of the House, of our need to point out the important things that we feel are missing from Bill C-7 and need to be addressed.

They include a number of issues that most working men and women include in their collective bargaining, have a right to be involved in, and have as rights within their workplace. We feel that the most important exclusions are issues around staffing, deployment, unfortunately harassment, and discipline. These issues have the largest impact on the health and safety of RCMP members and are central to most of the public complaints that RCMP members have made about their workplace.

It would not come as a surprise that people would know that as the labour critic and a member of the New Democratic Party, we support and have supported the collective bargaining of the RCMP members. We have always recognized workers' rights to meaningful collective bargaining, and that those issues extend beyond the issues of pay and benefits alone. Good collective bargaining and good collective agreements also include a discussion and decisions with the employer and the employees on important issues around workplace safety and health issues. These can sometimes be as important, if not more important, to employees in bargaining.

As we know from the RCMP members, and from what we know about what is going on within the police force, these are some of the most pressing issues for these particular workers. They are very much linked to their working conditions around deployment, harassment, and discipline.

Instituting a collective bargaining system—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. I think we should suspend as we are getting ready for the budget speech.

The member will have five minutes remaining in her speech when we renew.

The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte has a point of order?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Conservatives left a very generous surplus, which is going to be turned into a deficit today. Pursuant to Standing Order 32, I would like to set the context and table, in both official languages, the November “Fiscal Monitor” from the Department of Finance, and ask for unanimous consent.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the member have unanimous consent to table the document?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

It would appear there is no unanimous consent.

Sitting Suspended

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will suspend for a few moments.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4 p.m.)