House of Commons Hansard #35 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rcmp.

Topics

YouthOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Vaudreuil—Soulanges Québec

Liberal

Peter Schiefke LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to answer the question posed by my hon. colleague from Salaberry—Suroît.

One thing I can say is that we are incredibly proud of what we are doing as a government for our youth. Keep in mind that the previous government did not have a minister of youth. Keep in mind that the previous government did not take the needs of our youth seriously, and because of that we saw that, for 10 years, the unemployment rate for young people in this country stayed stagnant at roughly the same amount.

We are taking this seriously. We are investing and ensuring that we are providing opportunities for young people, to create jobs and give them opportunities to go to university and make sure they have a better future.

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, there are two international lakes in my riding: Lake Memphremagog and Lake Champlain. They are governed by the International Boundary Waters Treaty. These two lakes are extremely important to my constituents, because they provide their drinking water. Almost 250,000 people drink this water.

How does the government plan to improve the water quality of these lakes? Will it bring this issue to the International Joint Commission and engage in dialogue with our U.S. counterparts?

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Saint-Laurent Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, this question was posed by the member for Brome—Missisquoi, who is a tireless champion for Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog. He knows how important these lakes are to the entire region, and he is aware of their extreme beauty. That is why I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for the recent budget's investment of $7.5 million over five years in the most advanced scientific research. This will yield the best solutions for saving these lakes and making them clear, clean, and safe for people, in co-operation with our U.S. allies.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Mr. Speaker, may the wind blow and may the sun shine; this is the Liberal Party's vision for agriculture. In light of the budget speech, Canadian farmers are very worried, considering the scant attention that the Liberal government is paying to the agricultural sector.

The importance of agriculture to the Liberal caucus seems to be reflected in the minister's lack of influence.

Why did the budget not include any commitments regarding the compensation promised to farmers as a result of the trade agreement with the EU and the trans-Pacific partnership?

Agriculture and Agri-FoodOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that this government supports supply management and understands the importance of compensation.

In this budget, we were able to ensure that the middle class grew, that we revitalized the economy and put more money in the pockets of people. We also put broadband in so my hon. colleague's farmers would be able to talk on a cellphone. We farmers do business, and we deserve the right to talk on a cellphone.

Agriculture and Agri-FoodOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order, please. Whether we are talking on a cellphone or in this House, we always want to hear.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

Air CanadaOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, in 1988, the federal government appeased the Air Canada workers who were worried about its privatization by including a requirement in the legislation for the company to keep maintenance centres in Montreal, Mississauga and Winnipeg. For years now, Air Canada has been breaking the law with impunity, and the government has let the company get away with it.

Now the Minister of Transport is introducing a bill to relieve Air Canada of that obligation. How can the minister break his promise to the Aveos workers and turn his back on Quebec's aerospace industry? Is that the Liberal government's idea of law and order?

Air CanadaOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount Québec

Liberal

Marc Garneau LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the world has changed a great deal since then. That piece of legislation is 28 years old and needs to be modernized. The fact that Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuits against Air Canada gives us an opportunity to clarify the legislation and bring it up to date, so that Air Canada, which of course has to compete nationally and internationally, can be better positioned to decide for itself where to have its maintenance done.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, the 2012 omnibus budget bill, the infamous Bill C-38, repealed environmental assessment and put in place a bogus, weak Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, so-called, which has allowed the National Energy Board to make a mockery of real EA. I was shocked to find in this budget, at page 166, four years of funding specifically referenced to keeping the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 alive.

Does the Minister of Environment and Climate Change intend to entrench Bill C-38, or do the right thing and get rid of it?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Ottawa Centre Ontario

Liberal

Catherine McKenna LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her tireless advocacy on behalf of environmental issues.

I was thrilled with the budget. It was the greenest budget ever. It sends a clear signal that we are moving to a low carbon economy. We are going to create very good, clean jobs, and we are going to provide a more sustainable future for all our children.

I want to reassure the member opposite that we are committed to a review of our environmental assessment process. The amount of money that was provided for CEAA is intended to allow for that and also to support, in consultation with—

The EnvironmentOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order, please. I will now call upon the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for the usual Thursday question.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, just before I ask the Thursday question, I wonder if I could find unanimous consent to table the January “Fiscal Monitor”, which yet again shows a Conservative surplus.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

This request sounds familiar. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the report?

Business of the HouseOral Questions

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will move on to the Thursday question.

I wonder if the government House leader would update the House as to the business of the chamber after we return from our Easter break and constituency work.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

12:15 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if colleagues are so inclined, I could perhaps table at the end of my answer to the Thursday question, this very incisive weekly business today. However, I will leave that to your judgment, Mr. Speaker.

Today, the House is debating Bill C-7, the RCMP labour relations act. I hope we will conclude second reading at the end of the day today.

As my friend noted, the House will adjourn for the Easter break and allow members to return to work in their constituencies.

When we return on April 11, the House will complete the four days of debate on the budget, April 11, 12, 13, and 14. I know colleagues will want to speak to the budget. Those will be designated as days to debate the budget.

I want to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and Kelly a happy Easter. I also wish our colleagues and their families a happy Easter and a good break.

Public Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel had two minutes left for questions and comments. Are there are any questions or comments?

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Public Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member could comment on why we have Bill C-7 on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision before us today. Does he want to provide some thoughts as to why it is important to pass the bill as soon as possible?

Public Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I will give a little background. About 15 years ago, the Supreme Court validated the existing regime, to an extent. A more recent Supreme Court ruling overturned that decision, in light of the changes that took place since the original ruling. As a result, the existing regime is no longer valid and the government was given a deadline.

A new government came in after the last election. We came in and we took over the existing files. We therefore had to request a six-month extension. In its wisdom, the Supreme Court decided to give us another four months instead.

That is why we must have final legislation before March 16, 2016. The key point is that we must have a new collective bargaining regime. It is up to Parliament to choose a model for this regime.

We are proposing a regime that is modelled on the existing regime for other members of the civil service, other government employees.

We will obviously have to make some adjustments to reflect the unique nature of their work, to reflect how they operate, and to reflect their responsibilities.

Public Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures.

I will be sharing my time with the member for the great riding of Foothills.

As a former member of the RCMP, I was proud to serve with Canada's national police force. I recall the first day that I joined the force and I recall my last day. All of my 35 years within that organization were great.

Like many thousands of other members from the 1960s and 1970s who joined Canada's traditional world-famous redcoats, I can attest that I did not join up for the $4,800 a year but for the pride in serving our great country in Canada's police force.

We went where the force wanted us to go, from sea to sea to sea. We were all proud to serve, and we gave much to the force in long hours with no overtime.

We got the job done with basic equipment by doing the job with pride. In those days, some of our cars did not have radios. We were notified by a light that was turned on over the community that we had to return to the detachment, and we did so because that was our job.

Things needed to change with the rapidly changing times of the 1970s. Better equipment, better communications, better working conditions, and better compensation were the issues facing us. This was accomplished by a unique program that came about in 1974. The RCMP senior command listened and made changes. One big change was the division staff relations representation system, known to the membership as the DSRR.

The DSRR's work moved our force to the forefront. We remained one of the top 10 police forces in Canada in relation to compensation and working conditions through the efforts and great work of the RCMP DSRR system. We needed to have a say with respect to promotions, discipline, and grievances, and the DSRR program protected and served our members through the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s up to this present day.

Today it appears to have lost some of its effectiveness in promoting working conditions, compensation, and so forth, for reasons I do not want to go into. Last year I was shocked when I examined the 2015 RCMP review of the force in comparison to other police forces in Canada. When I proudly served, we were always rated among the top five police forces in Canada. Last year the RCMP was ranked below 50 other police forces in Canada with respect to pay, compensation, limited-duration postings, etc.

Canada's internationally acclaimed police force should not be at the bottom of the pile. It should be at the top. My personal feeling is that the DSRR program worked well at one time and could work well again if all of the departments within government would work together for the betterment of our men and women in uniform. This also applies to the military, firefighters, and first responders. Our men and women in uniform protect Canadians from harm's way. They often risk their lives in serving their communities, their provinces, and their country.

Personally, I believe that the RCMP, Canada's international police force, should not be unionized. There are so many situations that might complicate how this great organization performs its policing roles in the future, and I could go on for quite some time explaining what I foresee as future problems. However, I want to switch hats for a moment.

I was formerly mayor of a northern British Columbia city. For most cities, the cost of policing is one of their biggest budgetary items. I would like to provide a comparison of policing costs, and I will use British Columbia as an example.

The first example is with respect to RCMP communities. For communities with a population of under 5,000, the province pays 70% and the federal government pays 30%. For communities with a population between 5,000 and 15,000, the municipality pays 70% and the federal government still pays 30%. For communities with a population of over 15,000, the municipality now pays 90% and the federal government pays 10%.

Second, a comparison done several years ago showed that unionized municipal police forces in 12 communities in B.C. had 2,262 police officers looking after roughly 1.2 million people, at a cost of $348 million. RCMP contract services in B.C. at the same time in 28 communities with a population of more than 15,000 had 2,692 police officers looking after 2,109,601 people, at a cost of $369,652,000, or $22 million more for doing twice the work.

In my opinion, if the RCMP is unionized, the cost to communities across Canada contracted to the RCMP for policing services will increase dramatically.

Our Conservative Party respects the Supreme Court decision that the RCMP officers are entitled to bargain collectively. However, I cannot support any legislation that denies employees, especially RCMP members, the right to vote in a secret ballot on whether to unionize. The court's first and fundamental tenet of the charter right is employees' choice, and that is not reflected in this bill.

We do not use a show of hands or a public petition in our democratic elections, nor should we do in the workplace. The RCMP risk their lives every day. The least we can do is to give them the democratic right to vote, free of all intimidation, on whether to unionize.

We support this legislation going to committee, where we will ask the government to amend it to explicitly allow RCMP members the right to vote by secret ballot on whether or not to unionize. The RCMP's collective rights under paragraph 2(b) of the charter can be exercised by their employee choice at the first instance, saying whether they want an association or not, and that vote should be conducted in a way that conforms with our democratic principles, namely, by secret ballot.

Bill C-7 would bring certain parts of the workplace relationship outside of the bill, certain elements through the grievance process, and certain elements of the workplace would not be subject to the collective bargaining relationship. That is important, due to the unique role, chain of command structure, and heritage of the RCMP as a police force.

I urge the minister to work alongside the commissioner of the RCMP to ensure the bargaining and the well-being of our people, in safeguarding the employees' wellness in uniform and afterwards.

In closing, I want to remind my colleagues that RCMP members risk their lives every day. The least we can do is to give them the democratic right to vote on whether or not to unionize, free of all intimidation.

Public Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

March 24th, 2016 / 12:30 p.m.

Vancouver Quadra B.C.

Liberal

Joyce Murray LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yellowhead for his service on behalf of Canada.

I would like to point out that the Public Service Labour Relations Act has a number of sections that prohibit intimidation. I agree with him that a vote by RCMP members for or against unionization must free of intimidation. In fact, that is required by law in sections 186.1 of the act, and sections 187, 188, and 189. The law requires that be no intimidation by the employer or the union or any person.

Once this law is passed it will allow the board to select the appropriate method, whether it be a card check or mandatory vote or secret ballot. Why would the member require a one-size-fits-all approach that would not be suitable for all situations, rather than giving the board the flexibility to put forward the method that makes sense in the situation?

Public Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite get that whole question, but I will answer it in the best way I can.

There is no unanimous agreement within the RCMP on unionization. There is a group within the organization that wants to go that way; there is a group within the organization that wants to remain basically the way it is today. The DSSR system was a great negotiating tool for the RCMP. It worked extremely well until government started to intervene with the democratic process of enabling the DSSR reps to represent the members in the field in the appropriate ways.

Public Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my seatmate on behalf of the residents of Canada for his years of service in the RCMP. I owe him a great deal of respect for serving this great country for that many years.

I would ask the member to explain again why this vote should be done by secret ballot. We have recently heard comments by other members of how their parents were intimidated by the card-showing process, which is why this should be done through a secret ballot.

Public Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to serve and will keep serving. I will to try to make 50 years. I will see if I can do it.

There is dissension within the RCMP, and I hate to see it. It breaks my heart. However, there are two factions, and one faction of members wants to unionize, because they think they can make things a lot better for themselves and force the hand of management in the RCMP.

There was a DSSR program that I feel worked extremely well at one time. It was the envy of a lot of police forces, because government paid RCMP members to represent us. We voted for those people, and they represented us. They argued for us, worked on discipline matters, internal matters, promotional matters, and worked very effectively at one time on our pay. When they were very effective and government listened to them, we were at the top level of Canadian police forces. We did not say that we had to be number one; we just wanted to be at the top and be fair. However, things have gone downhill drastically.

Therefore, I support the bill if it will help my members in the field. I do not want to see an organization that I was so proud to serve for 35 years stay at the bottom. I want it up there and my members to be happy. When they are happy, they will serve their communities in a much better way than they do today.