House of Commons Hansard #53 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rcmp.

Topics

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I just want to start by expressing my disappointment at the way the government has come to use time allocation so routinely when we've hardly even been in this place for six months. The government's arguments about the time constraint because of the Supreme Court ruling are troubling to me because a tight timeline is not an excuse to pass a bad law. Government members in committee had ample opportunity to make this a better law. They chose not to, and because of that, we need extra time in this House to make it a better law. That was a choice of government members on the committee, not a choice of those in opposition who now want the opportunity to try to improve this bill before it goes forward.

About the deadline, the fact is that if this bill passes in its current form, we will not be meeting the deadline anyway, because the instruction of the Supreme Court was to confer real collective bargaining rights to RCMP members by May 16. This bill in its current form does not do that, so we are going to miss the deadline anyway by passing this bill.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is of real urgency that we pass this bill. The hon. member is right that the deadline is May 16, after which the Public Service Labour Relations Act will apply to the RCMP. There will be a lot of confusion around this. That act was never designed to apply to the RCMP, and part of this legislation is, in fact, to adapt it to do so. To have our national police force operating under that kind of uncertainty and ambiguity from a labour relations perspective is very bad. It is bad from a public safety perspective. We are doing the right thing.

Again, the hon. member is fairly new to this House. I welcome him. He is working hard as a member of Parliament. I enjoy working with him. However, the fact is that we as a government accepted legislative changes from the committee. If he had been here in the last Parliament, he would have seen that the Conservatives never would have accepted legislative changes made by a committee.

We are engaging committees respectfully. Under us, committees are not branch plants of ministers' offices.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister referring to the amendments made at committee. It was a Conservative-led initiative to strike clauses 40 and 42 from Bill C-7, which would have created an uneven regime of health and occupational safety for our members of the RCMP from coast to coast. I do recognize the government removed that after being urged by the Conservatives.

What troubles me greatly is this. I know that the minister and members of his caucus, particularly in provinces served by the RCMP, are hearing from rank and file members who are still upset about Bill C-7. They do not understand certain ramifications of it. Yet we are seeing the Liberals limit debate on this important bill, which impacts the RCMP, in a way that goes against what the Liberals were suggesting when they were in opposition. We have a closure motion being brought forward on a day they announced a committee to modernize our democracy. The irony is shocking. The Minister of Democratic Institutions lectured us here today on modernizing our democracy, and now this minister is getting up and suppressing debate on a bill that will impact the lives of thousands of RCMP members across the country. He has not allowed their voices to be heard in this House. He should stand now and apologize to those members across the country for closing down the debate and not taking them into consideration in the debate in this House. Will he stand an apologize to those members?

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I have considerable respect for the hon. member. I have known him a long time. However, he ought to realize that the urgency of the situation was created by his government in failing to act more expediently in response to the Supreme Court decision. We as a government inherited a situation that needed to be addressed. We requested an extension, and were granted a four-month extension, and we acted after that. We engaged Parliament. We engaged the committee process. In fact, we accepted a legislative change from the committee because we respect the role that all members of Parliament from all parties play in committees in terms of their role in crafting legislation. That is in stark contrast to his previous Conservative government's approach to the management of committees and the passing of legislation. However, that does not obviate the need to act and to act expediently when our national police force and its labour relations are under considerable uncertainty post-May 16. We have a responsibility to act, and as a government we take that seriously.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Vancouver Quadra B.C.

Liberal

Joyce Murray LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, given that the Supreme Court ruled that the current RCMP labour relations regime is unconstitutional, and given that the government has moved to respect the Supreme Court ruling, could the President of the Treasury Board outline the steps the government has taken to meet the Supreme Court's wishes so that there will be collective bargaining for the RCMP members and reservists?

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, this bill does give the RCMP the rights to collective bargaining. It does reflect a consultation process that was conducted under the previous government.

RCMP across Canada participated in a consultation process. This bill not only complies with the Supreme Court decision but seeks to reflect broadly the views of the rank and file RCMP members for whom we have tremendous respect.

As a government, we respect the decision of the Supreme Court. We have moved this legislation to meet the demands of the Supreme Court, to ensure that the RCMP are given collective bargaining rights. That is what this bill actually achieves.

When there was a legislative change proposed by the committee, we accepted that. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and I made it very clear when we met with the committee that we would work with the committee and accept reasonable legislative changes, as long as we could still move forward and comply with the Supreme Court decision.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, the government has predicated its entire decision to legislate unionization of the RCMP on a Supreme Court decision, and has relied on the labour relations model that was established by Justice Ivan Rand, the author of the famous Rand formula.

I presume the President of the Treasury Board supports the Rand formula. He nodded, so I take that as a yes.

The formula comes from a ruling in the late 1940s, in which the justice said:

...unguarded power cannot be trusted and the maintenance of social balance demands that the use or exercise of power be subject to controls. Politically this resides in alert public opinion and the secret ballot.

Mr. Justice Ivan Rand understood the essential nature of a secret ballot for democratic decision-making. Why will the government not extend that right to RCMP members?

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thought, coming from the hon. member, he would be quoting Ayn Rand.

In any case, the previous government, as part of its war on organized labour, brought in Bill C-525, which further toxified and rendered sulphuric relations with organized labour, and not just within the public service but with organized labour across Canada.

We committed in opposition, in our platform, and as a government and we followed through in terms of bringing forward legislation to repeal the provisions of Bill C-525. We believe that was the right approach.

As a government, we followed through on our commitments to reverse what the Conservatives did in terms of Bill C-525. As such, we would not impose on the RCMP an approach in terms of labour relations that is distinct from what every other union in Canada operates under.

We disagree fundamentally with the way the Conservatives approached this issue, in terms of Bill C-525. It is also important to realize that Bill C-7 actually gives a choice between a card check or a secret ballot.

However, we are not going to impose that on Canada's unions, on Canada's labour movement, which was an error that the previous government made. Again, it further toxified relations with organized labour. We disagreed with it then, and we followed through on our commitment to change that. To impose on the RCMP a regime that is different from what every other union in Canada operates under would make no sense.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, in the hockey world, people often say that the Montreal Canadiens' record of five back-to-back Stanley Cup wins will never be equalled. I thought the same thing about the Conservative record of 100 gag orders, but quite frankly, the Liberal government is well on its way to tying that record or even breaking it. It is shameful.

People in this place often have a short memory. I would like to quote the member for Winnipeg North, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. He said:

The government, by once again relying on a time allocation motion to get its agenda passed, speaks of incompetence. It speaks of a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and ultimately for Canadians.

In this case, we can argue it is for the RCMP as well.

I am trying to understand something. We are talking about the content of the bill. The Liberals' tactics do not end with time allocation. The minister is telling us that it does not matter, because the bill has been amended. That is simply smoke and mirrors, given that the amendments were Liberal amendments. They were put forward by Liberal members, not opposition members.

Once again, we are seeing the same tactics that the Conservatives used, even though they claimed to listen to members. That is true, but only if their political stripes are the right colour.

Does the President of the Treasury Board not find this rather embarrassing?

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's question.

Once again, it is very important to recognize that we inherited a very urgent situation. In a ruling, the Supreme Court recognized the right of RCMP members to collective bargaining. It recognized this and gave us an extension until May 16 of this year. It is very important that we take action, and that is exactly what we have done. We have shown great respect for Parliament and the committee's work. We have accepted the contributions and the amendments to our bill made by the committee.

Our colleague from the Conservative Party has actually taken credit for the change, so I would suggest that the New Democrats and Conservatives get this straightened out. The New Democrats are saying that we have not accepted anything from opposition. We have the Conservatives taking credit for it. If there is squabbling amongst themselves, it makes our situation very difficult in trying to adjudicate who is telling the truth on this.

I can say that regardless of the source, if something did not compromise our response to comply with the Supreme Court, we were open, as we were in terms of taking out the GECA changes. We can deal with those potentially in the future and have a more fulsome debate on that. However, we have a strict timeline to respect. We take that seriously. We inherited this situation from the previous government. We have needed to act, and we have acted.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Deb Schulte Liberal King—Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, the public safety committee decided to remove the GECA provisions, clauses 40 and 42. We have heard from RCMP members from across the country that they are happy that Parliament and the government heard their calls.

I would like to ask the hon. President of the Treasury Board why the government was okay with removing these clauses.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

First, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Public Safety and I met with the committee, we made it clear that we would take the work and the input of the committee seriously. We respect Parliament, and we respect the important work done by committees.

The removal of these provisions does not compromise the legislation in terms of complying with the Supreme Court decision. In the fullness of time, we can have a discussion around this, and perhaps we will do that. There were some concerns expressed in terms of the GECA provisions. We heard those concerns and accepted the removal of those provisions from the act. We think that demonstrates a lot of good faith in terms of respect for Parliament and respect for committees.

There is a lot of good work done at committees, and frankly the functioning of committees can be far less partisan than what goes on in the House, particularly in question period. I can say this as someone who has spent a lot of time working on committees over the years. We have a lot of new members of Parliament. The work that members of Parliament do on committees is valuable and important. This government understands that and intends to harness the creativity and wisdom and hard work of all members of Parliament, from all parties, on committees as we move forward.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, I heard from my colleague that there was consultation. However, I am hearing from RCMP officers, not only in my community, which is the largest detachment in the country, but right across this country, that the RCMP members have not been consulted.

I would like the hon. member to tell this House how these members were consulted, because he said that they were, especially when the Liberals are shutting down debate at this point.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the consultation was extensive. The hon. member was not a member of the previous Conservative government, but the consultation actually took place under the previous government. It was an extensive survey of RCMP members.

The bill does seek to reflect that, and it is important. The areas where there were concerns raised was around the GECA provision. We accepted legislative changes from committee.

The reality is, we have a responsibility to act, with a May 16 deadline. We do not feel comfortable with the uncertainty and ambiguity that will exist until we have a new law in place that respects the Supreme Court decision. It is not in our national interests, nor in the interests of public safety, to have our national police force, the RCMP, under this kind of uncertainty.

All members of Parliament in this House have a collective responsibility to act on something this important with a Supreme Court decision looming, and we did that.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is nonsense that a Supreme Court deadline should dictate the suppression of democracy in this place with the use of closure.

It is deeply ironic to hear Conservative members attacking the government for using closure, but attack it we must, because closure is anti-democratic. The fact that those people in government used it a hundred times in four years is appalling, but that does not give the new Liberal government licence to suppress democratic debate in this House, through the fiction that there will be some sort of chaos across the land if RCMP officers are suddenly allowed to collectively bargain in the absence of this legislation.

There is no harm done in public policy if we miss the deadline, but there is harm done in suppressing debate.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is entitled to her opinion. I always listen to her interventions with great interest, and sometimes she is right.

I disagree with her on this. I actually do think that uncertainty and the absence of a clear legislative response to the Supreme Court after May 16 is not a good situation in terms of our national police force. We do have a responsibility to act, to provide certainty in terms of the labour regime under which our national police force will be governed.

We take that seriously. Of course, we recognize the collective bargaining rights of RCMP, and we support and understand the Supreme Court's decision. I would think the hon. member would understand that as well. The legislation that we have now, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, does not in its current form really fit or suit the RCMP. Effectively, there will be conflicts between the RCMP regime and our existing Public Service Labour Relations Act. We do not think that is in the interests of the RCMP and the interests of public safety. We have had to act. In the process, we have actually accepted legislative changes made at committee.

We have and will continue to do our utmost to engage Parliament and engage committees meaningfully, as we craft legislation and move it forward in this House.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Mr. Speaker, I find the remarks of the hon. President of the Treasury Board interesting, because on one hand he says we do not want to impose something different on the RCMP than other unions have, and that was in response to the official opposition proposal and, on the other hand, he just stood up and said, “I want to impose something different on the RCMP than the Public Service Labour Relations Act.”

What the Liberals have done in this bill, of course, is to take some things out of collective bargaining that are quite normal for all unions to bargain, including police unions. Every other existing police union bargains on the things that have been excluded.

Obviously, we need more debate here, so that we can make it clear to the Liberals that in fact they are trying to establish something different and much more limited, by taking things like harassment out of collective bargaining, restricting the rights of the RCMP, and perhaps even causing another court case.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the issue of harassment. Our government, our Prime Minister, and our Minister of Public Safety have been absolutely clear on this. There is zero tolerance for harassment in the public service. There is zero tolerance for harassment in the RCMP and the military. Our message and our actions have been clear on that front.

Beyond that, the RCMP is currently dealing with some of these issues now, and that is absolutely important.

This is about a basic right for people to work in a workplace that is not a toxic workplace where they are subject to harassment. That is a basic right. We, as a government, understand the importance of that.

I can assure the hon. member that our Prime Minister, our Minister of Public Safety, our entire government, are committed to ensuring that the RCMP is a place where sexual harassment is not tolerated in any way, shape, or form. I assure the hon. member, we are absolutely committed to that.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have a comment from the hon. member on the relationship between Parliament as it exists now with the Supreme Court, compared to what it was in the 41st Parliament, and how we are trying to improve things.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I remember a justice minister in the previous government publicly quarrelling with a chief judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The party opposite, and particularly its genesis in the Reform Party, the Conservatives, when they were in office, made no bones of the fact that they were not big fans of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the 30th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms occurred under the Conservative government, and it did virtually nothing to celebrate. The Conservatives were busy finding the Franklin expedition, or the War of 1812. In fairness, that government did recognize certain things.

However, the fact is that we as Canadians, and this is not a partisan issue, ought to be justifiably proud of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the court system under which we are governed. The previous government did not understand or appreciate that. There was a values disconnect between the previous government and Canadians on the charter issue and the understanding of the importance of the courts.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is breathtaking that in fewer than five legislative days, the government has delivered a series of body blows, bruising the democratic process in the House.

First it imposed closure on Bill C-14 before a full two-thirds of the official opposition had a chance to speak to a piece of proposed legislation that is clearly deficient and would not meet the direction of the Supreme Court. It is not being materially improved in committee.

Today the government stacked a committee on electoral reform and renewed its pledge to deny Canadians the democratic right to vote in a referendum on such an important and fundamental process in our democracy.

Now the minister is seeking to justify closure on this legislation, on the importance of the secret ballot, by saying that 34 members of the House have spoken in debate. That is less than 10% of House membership.

I am wondering if the minister realizes what an appalling track record his government has set in such a brief period of time.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier of a toxic workplace. There are potential health and safety risks, near toxic levels of hypocrisy, coming from the Conservatives in attacking us, when we have to respond to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, with a deadline looming of May 16.

The reason we are in this position is because the Conservatives dragged their feet as a government and did not act expediently. As such, it put us in a difficult position where we were forced to seek an extension from the Supreme Court for four months, and within which we have acted.

The Conservatives used time allocation on a consistent basis. The leader of the Green Party cited that earlier. The Conservatives used it indiscriminately. It did not take the Supreme Court deadline for the Conservatives to do this.

We take seriously our responsibility to ensure that we respond to the Supreme Court decision and that we provide certainty in terms of the labour relations under which our national police force is governed.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; and the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, International Trade.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation MotionPublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.