House of Commons Hansard #33 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was right.
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, further to my friend's point, I understand that the consultation process that was initiated involved some 9,000 members of the RCMP. Obviously, in response to the Supreme Court's decision, it is important to get the RCMP members' input.
Perhaps the member could explain why he feels it is so important that this consultation process took place.
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is important to do a consultation with the stakeholders to make the best possible decisions. We are a government that believes in evidence-based decision-making and consulting with the people who matter, rather than saying, “This is how we are going to do things and who cares what you think.” This is a very good process and I am proud of it.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent speech and contributions to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
My understanding is that for certain items that are not in the collective bargaining process of this or many other police forces, there are alternative mechanisms in those police forces for addressing some of these types of issues. I do not know if the member is familiar with those, or could outline those, or get back to me with them at a later date.
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have been privileged in my life not to have been a police officer, but just take advantage of their protection and help, so I do not know the specific processes they have. I cannot give any details, but I would be more than happy to consult with the very good chair of the procedure and House affairs committee any time on this topic.
Joyce Murray LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his remarks, and to discuss the RCMP Act and the powers of the commissioner under that act to make certain determinations about work, disciplinary measures, working conditions, conduct, and so on. The members have the ability to grieve decisions under the RCMP Act. I would like the member's comment on the concept of having limited the bill to the basic working terms and conditions of employment, which is the requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada, and the very tight timeline to deliver on it.
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think the government made the right decision in preparing the bill in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling and the timelines available. We have many years ahead of us to make a lot changes on all topics, but we met the requirements given to us by the Supreme Court and it is the right path to be taking. I appreciate the member's intervention. She is helping me greatly understand this file.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I too am glad to rise on Bill C-7.
Before I begin to share some of my comments and thoughts, I would note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.
As I believe all of my colleagues have started their interventions on the bill, I would like to thank the RCMP who serve us every day. I am from British Columbia and have worked in rural communities. I do not think we can say enough of how important the RCMP are throughout our country, in terms on our safety and the work they do every day, which is sometimes dangerous. Also, there is the important pride and ceremony that they add to our lives.
Certainly as a nurse who worked in a small rural health centre, I remember many times when the RCMP would stop and check in. They wanted to make sure that we were okay. Of course, we were always very thankful, because it was a small community and we could have difficult patients. At a click of a button or a random stop-in, we knew that they cared about us and were there for us.
I also witnessed some of the horrific things they dealt with. They were at the scene of many accidents, and we would receive these patients in the emergency department. I understand some of the very difficult situations that they have to deal with.
I also want to make note of the danger. It was a little over a year ago in Kamloops, where I live now, when one of our RCMP members was doing a somewhat routine traffic stop. He was following someone who was refusing to stop. He got out of the car and was shot multiple times. Thankfully, he survived.
There is the very dangerous work they do every day, but, as important, I look at the pride when our RCMP members are dressed in the red serge and the tourists come and want their pictures taken. In Kamloops, whenever we require someone for ceremonial purposes, they are always there. We put in a request, and there is someone who is always willing to volunteer. Whether it be Remembrance Day, Canada Day, or special recognition ceremonies, they are there for us. I, like everyone in the House, want to thank them.
Broadly, we do support Bill C-7 and the intervention of the Supreme Court. For the most part, I think the government has done a reasonable job in putting a piece of legislation forward that reflects the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. It has some flexibility, which is very important for the unique role of the RCMP.
Having said “broadly”, I will talk about the one or two issues that we do have with the bill. However, there is a piece that I want to highlight that is perhaps less known, that no one has spent much talking about it, which is the Government Employees Compensation Act. There are some elements of the bill that I would like to reflect upon, as perhaps some people do not know what the situation is currently.
With regard to the Government Employees Compensation Act, what we call GECA, clause 40 of the bill would remove the exclusion of RCMP members from the application of the workers' compensation scheme. Clause 42 of the bill would amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act by repealing subsection 34(1). There is a lot of technical language, and I will explain what it means in a minute.
There is also a complementary amendment being made to GECA. The legislation would amend GECA to remove the exclusion of the RCMP members, and amend the RCMP compensation act to ensure full coverage under GECA for RCMP members. This would allow these members uninterrupted access to third-party adjudication, specialized medical and disability claims, and management services for the workers' compensation boards. It is an important element of the bill.
For those who might not know, although I think most people are very familiar with it, every province in Canada has what they call a workers' compensation board or, as we call it, employees' compensation. That is where firemen, loggers, or people in a desk job who are injured on the job or exposed to occupational health and safety hazards have the boards deal with issues of work-related injuries and disabilities.
Actually, until I became a member of Parliament, I never really thought about how our federal government employees were covered in terms of workers' compensation. For a number of years, there have been contracts with every compensation board across the country. People working at a fisheries office in British Columbia are covered by the system in British Columbia. Our Canada Revenue Agency employees working in Prince Edward Island have coverage through the Government Employees Compensation Act. The members of the RCMP have never had that support. They had an internal system that dealt with their issues.
As members might imagine, the workers' compensation boards have developed a lot of expertise in a number of different areas. This is expertise that could not be duplicated in a very small system, such as perhaps a small group within the RCMP. I will give a few examples. The boards have realized that prevention is significant and important, and there are amazing results in terms of prevention. Obviously, there are a lot of medical staff and programs and services, including occupational therapists and physiotherapists with ability and expertise in assessing workplace injuries. Some people would say that the RCMP is unique and would wonder whether this would work. I would argue that the boards deal with police services, provincially and municipally. They deal with firefighters, and a number of others. I think that the expertise that will come to bear is very important expertise.
The adjudication process, the third-party assessment, will be a much fairer system. This is a significant change. It is not a change that we have talked about in this House very often. We have not debated it as part of the legislation. However, I think it is important that we highlight the exclusion of the RCMP to the Government Employees Compensation Act. Not only did we work on it prior to this being introduced, but this is a piece of the legislation that we are very supportive of.
I need to conclude, but I have to talk about the secret ballot. It is ludicrous that the government members cannot even say the words “secret ballot”. The decision on whether to unionize or not is a difficult decision. It is a very personal decision. The RCMP members, in my conversations, have had a lot of struggle with that issue. The card-check method is very public. Someone who might be their friend puts a card in front of their face and wants them to sign it. Pressure comes to bear, and the pressure can come from either the employer or employees.
In my heart of hearts, I truly cannot understand why the government has moved away in terms of its secret ballot. It is not guaranteeing the right for the RCMP to have a secret ballot on an issue that is so divisive and personal. It is absolutely essential that this legislation allow what votes all over do.
My colleague earlier talked about card checks and whether we want a card check for our federal government system. That is the one area that I think Conservatives have particular concerns over. I do think there are some good elements of this bill that appropriately respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.
Michel Picard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and for sharing her interest in officers' compensation.
The exercise concerns BillC-7, and we have a very limited amount of time as we had to ask for an extension because the deadline had passed. I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to explain in a little more detail the basis on which the court is interpreting the process that the RCMP will use to decide on certification and whether there will be a secret ballot. I hope she will excuse my legal and technical ignorance. The court's simply requested that by May 16 we have a provision that will allow the RCMP to proceed.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is a conversation that has been going on within the RCMP for quite a few years now. Obviously before it got to the Supreme Court of Canada, there were many years and many components of the conversation. There was a staff relations representative program, and it was felt that they were able to represent the employees in terms of having conversations with management.
The Supreme Court of Canada did some things in its decision, saying that this was a violation of a section of the charter and there was a need to move forward in terms of members being able to make a decision. It was a very interesting decision, a complex decision, and I think a very appropriate decision in terms of the significant flexibility that was provided.
Joyce Murray LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her remarks, and particularly for highlighting the changes to the Government Employees Compensation Act, which, as the member mentioned, will provide more seamless support for injured RCMP members.
Unfortunately, the member then brought back the issue of the right to secret ballot for union members. She was part of a previous government that put forward Bill C-525. The very organizations that represent public sector members were almost unanimous in believing that it was the wrong way to go. They claim that the card check method is more likely to be free of employer interference. Therefore, suggesting that the right to secret ballot is good for employees is contrary to what the representatives of those employees are saying.
Why would the representatives of government employees speak out so strongly against Bill C-525 when it was passed, if it were in the interest of the employees, or in this case in the interest of RCMP members?
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that what the government is failing to mention is that in many provinces across this country, secret ballot is the system.
Actually, Bill C-525, which government members are speaking of as being a terrible piece of legislation, is the system in the province where I live, British Columbia, and I can tell my colleague the opposite. I worked in an environment where there was a certification union drive. It was a small health centre, and it divided the employers and employees. The fact that it was a secret ballot was a relief to the nurses and physiotherapists who worked there because their choice was private and was not the business of their colleagues. Ultimately, a decision was made.
It is not an unusual situation in this country to have a secret ballot.
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-7 as well. I concur with my colleagues who have just spoken in regard to the bill.
I had the opportunity, particularly in the Kamloops area at an earlier age, to work with RCMP members who actually came down to play hockey with us when I worked in that fair city a number of decades ago. The Sakaki family gave me my first opportunity to work in that community and the opportunity to play hockey with these RCMP officers as well.
Of course, that is what we are talking about here today: the RCMP officers who give their lives and work every day on behalf of Canadians to keep us safe.
I rise to express my concern regarding Bill C-7. The bill has some worthwhile and necessary provisions, as has been pointed out by some of my colleagues. However, the bill continues the Liberal tradition of bowing down to unions at the expense of democracy and increasing the power of unions at the expense of some of their members.
The Supreme Court's ruling makes it clear that the current regime must be updated to give RCMP members a greater voice in their workplace while continuing to to ensure public safety. However, certain provisions of the bill are thinly veiled attempts to pay unions back for their support of the Liberal Party in the last election. These are the parts of the bill that make it a bit undemocratic.
I stood in the House recently to speak against Bill C-4, the Liberals' first attempt to pay unions back for their election support. That bill was also deeply problematic. The timing of it could not have been more opportunistic in its attempt to make the government's own collective bargaining process easier at the expense of union members.
That bill also scaled back one of the most important rights of union members, the right to participate in a secret ballot on certification and decertification. We have seen that the government side is afraid of the words “secret ballot”. What are they afraid of? I would suggest they are afraid of democracy in this situation.
The combination of Bills C-4 and C-7 leaves RCMP members without a secret ballot vote on future union drives. The result is that a certification could occur through intimidation and undemocratic pressure tactics that are all too common with card check certifications. I believe strongly in giving workers the right to a vote that is free of intimidation prior to being forced to join, pay dues to, or be represented by a bargaining agent.
As I have said before, each hon. member in the chamber is here today because the residents of their constituency chose to give them the most personal thing they possess, their vote. As elected members of the House, our highest duty is to defend the democratic principles that brought us here. The secret ballot is the highest pillar of this process. It is difficult for me to believe that the Liberals have the nerve to argue that the public servants at the front line of Canadian safety do not deserve their democratic rights.
Our brave RCMP officers put our safety above theirs every day when they get up to go to work every morning and on every shift. Without them, we would not have the rule of law. Without them, many resolutions of the House would be worth less than the paper they are printed on. Without them, Canada would not be the free and safe society it is today.
Our RCMP stand up to criminals in some very dangerous situations. They rely on their fellow officers, their team, to have their backs. Bill C-7 would make our RCMP officers less safe by encouraging internal conflict within RCMP ranks. It creates a climate in which a union could pressure its members into signing their support. This really means that certain RCMP members would be pressuring others, creating tension and conflict while destroying trust.
Just as during election campaigns when candidates ask for the support of their friends and neighbours by going door to door, union representatives would be able to go from officer to officer to try to pressure them. As many of my hon. colleagues will know from their own campaign experience, while many people mean the support they promise, many people on the doorstep just want us to get off the porch or do not feel comfortable saying no to our face.
Without a secret ballot to guarantee the rights of public service workers, the potential for intimidation is disturbing. We all know that the potential for workers to be intimidated by their unions is very real. While this is serious for all workplaces, it is even more serious for a workplace where having a cohesive team can mean the difference between injury and safety, between life and death, as in the RCMP.
The Liberals have absolutely no good reason to get rid of this vital check. With the beginning of an important process for the RCMP, the Liberals are creating a problem that is easily avoided. The card check system allows for a workplace to be unionized without letting all employees have their say, and it could proceed with a significant portion of the workers having no idea that it was even going on.
The bill narrows the democratic legitimacy of an RCMP union and scales back the rights of our hard-working officers to select their representatives and determine their own fate. While the current regime must change to give our officers a greater voice in the workplace, it has to be done correctly.
As the bill currently stands, it sends a terrible signal to the men and women who keep us safe, a signal that the Government of Canada does not care about them. During the Conservatives' time in government, we consistently supported the RCMP, CSIS, and public safety agencies by modernizing legislation and increasing their budgets to ensure that these forces had the right tools to keep Canadians safe.
Right now, the RCMP is contracted to provide police services to eight provinces and over 150 communities. As the representative of the constituents of Brandon—Souris, I represent several such communities. I know first-hand the quality and professionalism that many RCMP officers of my riding bring to the job every day. We depend on them to keep us safe and are grateful to them for their service.
Not only would the officers in my riding have fewer democratic rights as a result of an unamended Bill C-7, but the communities that pay for their services would experience great hardship if labour costs dramatically increased. If our small communities cannot afford policing, nobody wins.
I echo my colleagues in supporting an amendment to this legislation that would explicitly allow RCMP members the right to vote on whether to unionize through a secret ballot.
Joyce Murray LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I am struck by how much repetition there is from the Conservative members. I take that to be a huge compliment to the bill itself, because the basic premise of their concerns has to do with the secret ballot or mandatory vote regimes. In their previous attempt to undermine and weaken the union movement, they were foisting that method.
What our bill does, in fact, is provide the board with great discretion in determining the very best method to satisfy itself that a majority exists to certify a bargaining agent, whether that method is a vote or a card check. There is greater flexibility. The bill increases the democratic rights of our RCMP members and in fact makes it possible for the situation to be considered.
I would like to ask the member if it is not possible that there might be employer interference in a secret ballot or mandatory vote regime, which neither we nor the RCMP members themselves would want to have? Would the current board flexibility not actually address that by giving them the choice of applying either a card check or a secret ballot?
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague makes my point in regard to why we would like to have a secret ballot.
It does not matter whether we are on the union side or the employer side: if there is a secret ballot, the people can make up their own minds. That is very clearly why we are spending so much time on this side of the House in dealing with the right to a secret ballot. It takes away interference from either side, and individual officers can make up their own minds after listening to both sides. It takes away the intimidation that was referred to by my hon. colleague across the way.
I did say in my opening remarks, and I know some of my colleagues agree, that the bill has some worthwhile and necessary provisions in it. That was the first comment I made. Let me say again that the bill does need improvement, which would be achieved by allowing RCMP officers to have a secret ballot if there is a union to be formed among them.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the member on the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region. He mentioned that the RCMP serves eight provinces, but it also serves three territories. I want to make that clear. We often get left out. I was making the point at a meeting of tourism people yesterday that my riding has the highest percentage of GDP of any territory or province in the country related to tourism.
I understand the point that the member would like amended. To make sure I am clear, is the member in favour of the rest of the bill?
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, I as well like working with the member in the Arctic areas that we have been in, and I stand corrected. I certainly know that the RCMP are in our three territories as well.
We would have to consider the bill further if there were an amendment put forward. I would urge the member to bring that forward himself and have it as an amendment to the bill.
Federal Public Sector Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders
Hull—Aylmer Québec
Liberal
Greg Fergus LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley East. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise today to support Bill C-7.
It is an honour to participate in this debate and take a stand on behalf of the members and reservists of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Today's bill seeks to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years. RCMP members and reservists have been denied that right, despite the significant contribution they have made to our proud, strong, and free nation over the past 143 years.
This bill would remedy that situation. It is a clear and reasoned response to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on January 16, 2015. The court indicated that section 2(d) of the Canadian 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 stated that the current RCMP 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.
I thank the Supreme Court for this ruling, and I am pleased to support this bill today, which would give RCMP members and reservists freedom of choice and independence from management, while recognizing their unique operational reality.
This bill was carefully developed from the results of consultations with key stakeholders. The initial consultations were held with regular members of the RCMP. The next round of consultations were held with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that have police service agreements with the RCMP.
There are some important features in Bill C-7. First and foremost, it gives access to independent, binding arbitration when the bargaining dispute resolution process reaches an impasse. Members of the RCMP bargaining unit will not have the right to strike, which is in line with the practices of other police forces across the country. Those who participated in the online consultation expressed a strong preference for this provision.
The bill will also create a single, nation-wide bargaining unit composed of RCMP members appointed to a rank as well as reservists. In order to be certified, an RCMP bargaining agent must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. Once again, regular members have shown strong support for these provisions. The bill also provides for the exclusion of officers at the inspector level and above from representation.
Lastly, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will act as the administrative tribunal for matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, as well as grievances related to the provisions of the collective agreement.
This bill is in line with the government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country.
Consider, for example, Bill C-5, which repeals division 20 of Bill C-59, the bill to implement budget 2015, introduced in April of last year by the previous government.
That bill gave the government the power to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service.
The Public Service Staff Relations Act was first introduced in 1977 in order to give public servants the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Guaranteeing collaborative efforts among the parties is crucial, as is increasing the capacity of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.
Our government has made it abundantly clear that it will not adopt an approach that does not take into account the bargaining process between an employer and a group of employees who want to reach agreements on employment conditions.
By repealing these provisions of Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process. We believe in collective bargaining. Today's bill is a testament to our belief in that right.
We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations. Unfortunately, over the past few years, many basic labour rights have been undermined. Consider Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, for example, which will change how unions can be certified or decertified and will impose new financial reporting requirements on them.
Those bills were passed without the usual consultation process involving employers, unions, and the government, which was used during the reform of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As a result, it is now harder for unions and employers to bargain in good faith.
Instead we must ensure that workers are free to organize, bargain collectively in good faith, and ensure safe workplaces for themselves. To make that happen, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced a bill to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.
Bill C-4 restores the bargaining agent certification and decertification processes that were in place before June 16, 2015. Bill C-4 also amends the Income Tax Act to get rid of unnecessary requirements imposed on labour organizations and labour trusts with regard to releasing certain financial information.
As hon. members know, legislative measures are already in place to ensure that unions make that financial information available. Under section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, unions are required to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge, which makes these requirements to produce extra reports unnecessary.
In conclusion, the bill being introduced today is consistent with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations. Every other police force in Canada has had the right to engage in collective bargaining for quite some time. This bill respects 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 deserve. To that end, I am calling on all hon. members to show their support for RCMP members and reservists by voting in favour of this bill.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, the NDP supports this bill at second reading, but we are concerned that while very important changes are being proposed, an imperfect proposal in terms of labour relations going forward with respect to the RCMP is also part of the bill.
A particular concern we have dealt with on many occasions in the House is what happens when we deal with harassment allegations, particularly the kinds of very serious allegations that have come out in recent years with respect to women working in the RCMP who have not been heard and have, in fact, been re-victimized as a result of the failure of the RCMP to deal with their cases. We are concerned that there is the potential for submitting procedures to deal with harassment allegations to the collective bargaining process and that could undermine the neutrality, stability, or reliability of the RCMP fundamentally.
Does my colleague see a problem in the potential for that and what does the government propose with respect to the very serious issue of dealing with sexual harassment allegations in the RCMP?
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski takes this issue very seriously. I am very happy to hear of the support from the hon. member for, as we say in French, les grandes lignes de ces projets de loi. I am pleased to hear there is that kind of support.
The question she asked with regard to the harassment procedures is also a very important question and one which I would like to address.
First, as I said in my speech, the bill would provide the opportunity for the RCMP, its officers and reservists, to acquire collective bargaining rights, but it is narrowly circumscribed to deal with last year's court ruling.
With regard to harassment issues, which I know the hon. member takes very seriously and which we all in the House take seriously, there are procedures in place and ways in which we can deal with that outside of the legislative process. Our efforts should be to improve those procedures to ensure senior officers in the RCMP have the opportunity to address those issues internally. That is beyond the ambit of what we as legislators can actually draw together and provide in the bill.
We will take those issues seriously and we will be very supportive of the efforts of senior RCMP officers to address those questions.
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, it has been widely debated today, and I think the Conservative Party stance is widely known.
I want to ask the hon. member opposite a question. In making these decisions, moving forward with this bill, and, ultimately, the potential unionization of the RCMP, these costs will also be borne by the municipalities and communities from coast to coast, in the eight provinces where the agreements are in place. I would like to know whether the government has taken steps to address that or to focus on that in the upcoming budget, which will be presented later today, or in future budgets as we move forward, and what the cost implications will be.
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a good one. That is one of the reasons why the scope of this bill allows for a single national collective bargaining unit and not several collective bargaining units, which could have an effect in how the negotiations would happen with the municipalities and the provinces. That is the reason this was carefully taken into consideration. That is why the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, based on consultations not only with the RCMP but with officials and learning from other experiences of police forces across the country, came up with this model to ensure we do not take that into account.
Sometimes there is a cost to inaction. There is a cost to inaction by not allowing the RCMP to have the same kinds of collective bargaining rights that other police forces have enjoyed across the country. It is really important at this time to address this issue now, rather than allow this to lead to a crisis situation.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-7, a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists.
This legislation marks a significant milestone in the history of both the RCMP and Canadian labour relations. With the passage of this bill, for the first time RCMP members and reservists would have the same collective bargaining rights as other police forces in Canada. They would be able to choose an employee organization to represent them in labour negotiations with their employer, the Treasury Board of Canada.
Specifically, this bill proposes to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to create a new labour relations regime for RCMP members and reservists.
There are a number of particularly noteworthy aspects of this legislation that I would now like to highlight.
The bill would give RCMP members and reservists the right to have an independent bargaining agent of their own. It would provide for a single national bargaining unit for reservists and RCMP members appointed to a rank. In order to be certified as the bargaining agent for the RCMP bargaining unit, an employee organization would be required to have the representation of RCMP members as its primary mandate. Moreover, the process provided under the Public Service Labour Relations Act would be used to exclude other managerial and confidential positions. This means that the bill would exclude officers at the inspector level and above from representation.
As well, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be the administrative tribunal for collective bargaining matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, and grievances related to collective bargaining would be addressed. The board would be required to take into account the unique operational reality of the RCMP. As members know, due to public safety and security considerations, RCMP regular members are not permitted to strike. This would continue under the new regime. Instead, the dispute resolution mechanism would be binding arbitration, which is consistent with other police forces across the country. That is the essence of the bill.
The bill is a targeted response to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling, and is meant to address its decision. As a government, we respect the Supreme Court and are committed to providing the RCMP with legislation that brings its labour regime in line with the Supreme Court ruling.
Let me provide a bit of background.
The bill is the end result of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada issued more than year ago in January 2015. At that time, the court ruled in the legal case cited as Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General). It found that some federal legislation and regulations relating to RCMP labour relations were unconstitutional because they prevented the formation of an independent RCMP employee organization. As such, they contravened the freedom of association guarantee enshrined in paragraph 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court gave the Government of Canada until January 16, 2016, or 12 months, to consider its options and respond with a labour relations framework that is compliant with the charter. The government took steps to bring the law into compliance with the Supreme Court ruling.
This past summer, the Treasury Board Secretariat engaged an independent consultant to survey regular members of the RCMP. The purpose of these consultations was to canvas the RCMP regular members' views on the potential elements of a labour relations framework that would allow them to choose their representatives and bargain collectively.
The process consisted of a survey and town hall meetings. More than 9,000 regular members completed this survey, and more than 650 participated in town hall meetings. Their feedback was then compiled into a report, which was posted on the secretariat's website on December 7, 2015. This report was helpful in contributing to a legislative framework that would be in line with the Supreme Court's ruling.
We have taken a fair and reasonable approach to examining this complex matter. This necessitated careful consideration of the next steps, including consultation with regular members of the RCMP, and with the provinces and territories with RCMP police services agreements. Now, after more than a year of consideration and consultation with the RCMP regular members, and within the Canadian jurisdictions that contract for RCMP services, the government has acted on what it has learned.
The bill we have tabled today is the next step. It would give RCMP members and reservists greater independence from management and freedom of choice in labour relation matters. This is indeed a historical occasion for our national police, and I am proud to speak in support of this carefully considered piece of legislation.
The bill is very much in keeping with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations. Engaging in collective bargaining is a right long since exercised by other police forces in Canada, and we think it is time to extend that right to the RCMP.
I urge all members to support this bill and ensure that those Canadians who dedicate themselves to defending the law have their constitutional rights defended by the law.
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with other New Democrats in support of the general direction of this proposed legislation. I commend the court for giving the direction, and I commend the government for taking it up. As far as it goes, we are in support, and we want to talk about it in committee.
The members opposite support improved workplace safety and finding a resolution to the unresolved issue of sexual harassment complaints by members of the RCMP to the RCMP commissioner. It is a very high profile issue that is unresolved, and the process is not working. Also, there are unresolved issues of workplace safety in relation to rural officers in particular. Both in Mayerthorpe and Moncton, there was terrible loss of life of RCMP members, and there are remaining issues as to the extent they were protected.
These men and women stand up for us, and we should stand up for them. Therefore, will the members opposite support the inclusion in the collective bargaining process of the workplace safety issues of sexual harassment and member safety? It seems at this point that these are excluded, and this is the perfect time to include them as a collective bargaining matter.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's question is a very important one, because sexual harassment in any workplace is not acceptable.
Workplace safety for all is part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the collective bargaining in this new bill is really to address the issues around what the Supreme Court has ruled.
This bill will go to committee, and I think further discussion is important. The committee's input is critical to making the bill better.
Joyce Murray LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, my question is with respect to the commitment of the Government of Canada to supporting the dedicated women and men of Canada's national police force, and also the unique circumstances in which RCMP members work. I would ask the member to comment a bit more on the requirement that any employee organization seeking to certify as a bargaining agent for the RCMP must have the representation of RCMP as its primary mandate and that it could only associate with other unions that also have police officers as their primary mandate.