House of Commons Hansard #178 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rcmp.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, how can my colleague explain the fact that this legislation was forgotten on a shelf for nearly a year and that the House now has to rush to make a decision? The Liberals are saying that this is urgent, but they have been asleep at the switch for nearly a year.
What happened?
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the public safety committee, the bill received extensive consultation. We had considerable discussion on it. It then went to the Senate for further consultation. Then it came back to the government. I am quite pleased with what we have before us today. We repeatedly heard at committee what they wanted to have in place. Therefore, I am quite pleased the government listened to what the Senate said to us with respect to the exclusions. The one issue I heard about more than anything else was the fact there were exclusions in the bill. We have removed those, and here it is today.
RCMP members have told me they would like to see the legislation move quickly. In fact, one woman has contacted me almost weekly. Therefore, I think she and other members will be quite pleased that the bill has come to the House and we are moving on it.
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Oakville North—Burlington for her service on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
Today is a good day. The RCMP will now be able to bargain the issue of harassment. Could my colleague expand on what she has heard and what her views are on the importance of this step today?
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy on gender equality in the workplace. It has been an issue for the RCMP. We have discussed this at the public safety committee and I have questioned the commissioner on the issue.
To see us moving forward, allowing members to have that issue on the table for negotiation, is critical. It is extremely important for RCMP members, and in particular female RCMP members, who predominantly have been subjected to harassment in the workplace.
Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, let me remind the House that the official opposition respects the Supreme Court's decision that the RCMP officers are entitled to bargain collectively. The Conservative Party supports the role of the mounted police and we thank the members for the great work they do on the front lines, serving Canadians every day.
It was interesting to hear the prior speaker from the government side say that we needed to move fast. It has taken the government almost 12 months, since June 2016, to bring the legislation to the House in response to the Senate amendments. RCMP families and members have been waiting that 12 months.
It is well known within policing circles across Canada that RCMP members have fallen behind significantly in their remuneration and their benefits as a result of that 12 months and the fact that this issue has taken so much time to come back to the House.
When members across the aisle say that they meet with members and that they will be happy, of course they will be happy because we are finally dealing with it. However, since the time of the decision, it has taken the Liberals two years to get to here. Clearly, this could have happened a lot sooner. Today we are told that we will only have five days of debate, that the Liberals are shutting the debate down. The reality is that we will have only two days of debate.
I will give a quick background on what is known as the RCMP unionization bill.
The Supreme Court ruled, in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario vs. Canada, that the existing labour relations regime violated the rights of the RCMP members under section 2(d) Freedom of Association of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court ordered the government to remedy this charter breach.
As the official opposition, we took the position that the original bill, while a reasonable response to the court's ruling, could not be supported as it denied the RCMP members the right to vote or, as some people refer to it, a secret ballot in the certification process.
In June 2016, the Senate returned a significantly amended Bill C-7 to the House. Let me talk about those Senate amendments. These Senate amendments came back, after the Senate's scrutiny and study. They were unanimously supported by all members of all parties on all sides within the Senate. The amendments included: first, the right to vote or the secret ballot certification process; second, confirmed and clarified the existence of management rights for the RCMP commissioner; third, removed a number of items excluded from negotiations in the original bill, such as transfers, relocations and dismissals, uniforms and equipment; and fourth, enabled an arbitrator in a decision to consider not only the collective agreement but the legislative context as well.
Here is the government's response to those four amendments, which we received late last Thursday, early Friday. I will go at those four issues one at a time.
First, the government disagrees with the creation of the right to vote through a secret ballot. Second, it agrees with the RCMP commissioner, management rights and amendment. Third, it agrees with the removal of all exclusions. Fourth, it disagrees with the broader interpretation of grievances.
Clearly the government must take action to restore the confidence of the front-line police officers in the RCMP's management and restore the confidence in Canadians in the RCMP. That means ensuring the RCMP pay is in line with the pay of other police forces. it also means working to ensure appropriate recruitment and retention programs.
As mentioned, in January 2015, in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario vs. Canada, the Supreme Court said that the labour relations law violated the rights of RCMP members under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority ruling stated, “What is required is not a particular model, but a regime that does not substantially interfere with meaningful collective bargaining and thus complies with” the freedom of association.
I remind the House that in its ruling the court gave the government 12 months to remedy the charter breach.
In January 2016, the government requested and received an extension from the court until April 2016. To be fair, this was not an unreasonable request as there had been a general election in the interim. The government did after all deserve an opportunity to get it right. Well, the Liberals did not get it right.
Again to be fair, the bill in its original form was, for the most part, a reasonable response to the court's ruling. Members on this side of the House did take the time to point that out when it was originally debated almost a year ago. I will discuss how we did that later.
We also expressed our willingness to move this legislation quickly and to work constructively with the government. All of us as members of Parliament represent members of the RCMP in our ridings. Some of us know them closer than others, but we all had heard from them through our constituency offices as to what the issues were with respect to their importance.
In fact, there was some discussion, anecdotally, in my riding of the reason why we was here. It was not because the bill had been delayed even further. It was because of the yellow ribbon campaign of the front-line officers who began to take stripes off some of their uniforms and put yellow ribbons to replace them to express the fact that nothing was happening. Suddenly when they did that, we got action.
We also expressed our willingness to move legislation quickly, but it had a fatal flaw. Specifically, it denied the RCMP members a right to vote by secret ballot. By doing so, it denied those RCMP members with a choice free of intimidation from all sides on whether they wanted representation and who would represent them in collective bargaining negotiations.
The bill was returned to the House amended to include that right to vote secret ballot clause. Let us not forget that. The actual mover of the motion in the Senate on the government side, who happened to be, by the way, an RCMP member at one time, unanimously agreed to send it back to the House with that included. Also, this amendment was supported by the government bill in the Senate.
In June 2016, the Senate returned the amended bill to the House. For months, the government told us it was considering the Senate's amendments “as quickly as we can”. Here we are nearly a year later and we are just getting the government's response. It has been nearly two and a half years since the Supreme Court brought down its original ruling. One cannot help but wonder why there is suddenly a rush to get the bill passed after such a long delay.
Perhaps the yellow ribbon campaign was the catalyst, launched in response to an equally long-awaited pay package. Perhaps it is the increasing frustration from more and more RCMP officers who are expressing openly with RCMP management and with the government on a number of issues. Unfortunately, RCMP members had to be brought to the brink before the government finally woke up.
To quote the commissioner,“...I tell you all solemnly: we went to bat and our Minister...went to bat, and there was no better package to be had at this time”.
If true, I give the minister full credit. However, guess who is the only person in a position to strike the minister out when he went to bat for those RCMP members. It was the Prime Minister.
As mentioned earlier, the Senate's amendments introduced a secret ballot or right to vote certification process. As well, they confirmed and clarified the existence of management rights for the RCMP commissioner, they removed a number of items excluded as non-negotiable in the original bill, and they enabled an arbitrator in a decision to consider not only a future collective agreement but legislative context as well.
I am glad to see that the government has finally come forward with its response to the Senate, even if it did take nearly a year or so.
We continue to support the general direction of the bill. However, we simply cannot support any legislation that denies employees, especially RCMP members, their right to vote in a secret ballot, free of intimidation from all sides.
Earlier, my colleague rose on a question to the member who had just previously delivered a speech about this issue and how it is a fundamental right in our democracy for that secrecy of our vote. I could give many examples of how we defend this around the world, as a government. Over the years many members from the current government have asked to go to monitor elections in other countries, to monitor the fact that we hold sacred the right to be able to choose without intimidation from any side. One of the members I personally spoke with on this issue expressed to me his deep disappointment in the fact that the Senate amendment for the right to vote has been turned down by the government. As he relayed it to me, as was mentioned in another answer today, RCMP detachments take all forms, in terms of size, scale, and scope. We have many small detachments around the country and we have large detachments as well.
However, he pointed out that in the small detachments around the country that might have five or six members working there, maybe even less, how much of a role intimidation will play, in terms of how those members are asked to vote in this process, because the office has its superiors, it has members at all different ranks of membership in the RCMP and in their occupation. As he said, they really will not have a choice at all; they will have to be falling in line with their supervisors, essentially.
This is a crime that should not have happened, in terms of the government turning down what the Senate unanimously brought back as an amendment.
We are in support of our front-line members and we would like to see them have the direction that the bill is taking, giving them the collective rights.
I would like to make two last points. Number one, it has taken far too long for the government to get off its heels to bring it to the House, and number two, we will always protect the right to free voting.
Resuming DebatePublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders
Vancouver Quadra B.C.
Liberal
Joyce Murray LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my Conservative colleague's comments.
The background to Bill C-7 that we are debating today is that the Conservative Party is essentially against appropriate collective bargaining rights, and those members showed that when they brought in anti-labour bills such as Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Our government tabled Bill C-4 to put the discretion of certification back with the Public Service Labour Relations Board, where it used to be, to determine whether a secret ballot or a card check is the most appropriate. The board is committed to making sure that members' interests are reflected in the choice made.
That was the system we had until the previous Conservative government made those anti-union changes. When RCMP members were extensively consulted by the previous Conservative government, narrowing down the certification method to exclude a card-check system was not on their list of priorities.
The Conservative member is not reflecting the desire of RCMP members. He is not reflecting the fact that the dual system arbitrated through the Public Service Labour Relations Board has been in place successfully for many years.
Why would the member let this one element convince him to vote against all of the positives, like providing RCMP members with a labour relations opportunity, to be represented by a union, which is what they want and is what the Supreme Court ruled that they deserved to have? Why would he vote against that?
Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, let me correct the member. The Supreme Court did not say this is a right RCMP members need to have. Let me make that very clear. It is very misleading to say that the Supreme Court decision said that RCMP members should not have the right to vote for the secrecy of their vote. Let me be very clear on that.
Second, the basic fundamental of our democracy is based on the principle of free choice without intimidation. As I mentioned in my speech, we defend this around the world. Canada is a model of democracy and we are asked to go to other countries to make sure intimidation is not happening in those environments.
Constitutents as well as RCMP members who are friends and neighbours have spoken to me about this issue. Until we are in that environment, we cannot fully understand the kind of things that can happen to sway our vote, and they are intimidating things.
To the point the member is making, it is a fundamental right, and we will stand on principle for that right.
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of times from the government that we have had ample time to debate this issue. The Liberals have said that we have had 16 hours of debate on this legislation. What I find interesting about that claim is that it has a presumption buried in it, which is that the conversation that happens in the House is simply for the benefit of the Liberals, and they listen only when they want. They can leave and come up with their answer, and that is what we have to deal with.
The conversation that happens in Parliament is not just for the benefit of government legislative drafters. It is for Parliament, with the idea being that Parliament might want to weigh in and make some changes. The idea that we have been debating the content of this motion for 16 hours, or whatever number the government wants to use, is false. I wonder if my hon. colleague wants to speak to the veracity of that claim.
I mentioned some issues earlier, and the member has mentioned some others, around how the grievance procedure is going to work, whether it is consistent with the CRCC recommendations that came out yesterday, and how exactly we are going to define the scope of the commissioner's power to maintain effective operations. These are all things we do not know and we are not part of the debate, to my memory. Perhaps the member has a different memory of events. Those were part of the original debate on Bill C-7, so there is genuinely new material for us to study and discuss to make sure we get this right, as the government claims, in the House anyway, that it would like to do.
Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving perspective and context to this, because he is absolutely right. It was a motion from the Senate to bring back these amendments, which have not been debated at all until today. Now, right from the onset, we have been given time allocation, which means the government does not really want the debate but wants to push it through as fast as it can, just as it has done on many other occasions in this House. This is not only a developing pattern, but it is a technique that it looks as if the current government will take from this point forward on legislation it wants to dictate to the rest of Parliament.
I continue to be reminded of how the Liberals arrived in this House early on as a government and tried to stuff Motion No. 6 down our throats to take away our ability to be an effective opposition. It is dictatorial. It is ramming it down the throats of the opposition. This is not what the Liberals were elected on, which was a platform of open debate in this House. This is exactly the way my colleague described it. This is not real debate. Rather, the government is taking something and dictating to the rest of Parliament that this is what it will do, which totally disrespects those of us in the opposition, and Parliament.
Resuming DebatePublic Service Labour Relations ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, when I sat in opposition, the Harper government brought in time allocation on well over 100 occasions. On a number of those occasions, I was sympathetic to the government saying that it only takes 12 members of the House to indefinitely delay any piece of legislation, with a little thought to the process. Even back then, when I was in opposition, I argued that we needed a responsible opposition that would sit down and work with the government to try to figure out the best way to advance legislation.
I wonder if the member across the way would recognize, as Stephen Harper did, that at times there is a need to use time allocation, because if the opposition refuses to see legislation pass, it would only take 12 members to cause a whole lot of havoc. I wonder if Mr. Harper was wrong those 100-plus times that he invoked time allocation.
Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, what is curious in this whole debate so far today, including the questions during time allocation, is how the current government wants to paint itself by blaming the previous government for all the things it has done. When the Liberals went to the polls, they said they would be different and do things differently. They represented themselves to Canadians, presenting the things they would do to reform our Parliament. It is so unbecoming for the President of the Treasury Board, because the Liberals have come here today with the argument that all of the blame with respect to this bill should be placed on the previous government. It is a narrative that is worn out. The Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what they promised Canadians they would do, during the general election.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
Knowing how good the government is at communications in general, since it just made Canadians' heads spin with two great press releases, what reason is there for limiting the time for debate today? Is the government just trying to cover up the fact that it has been asleep at the switch for nearly a year?
Phil McColeman Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, the question as to why it took 11 months was never answered. It was danced around by the President of the Treasury Board and everyone else whom we have asked today. The Liberals will not answer the question of why it took so long. Many of the RCMP members think it was the yellow ribbon campaign that pushed them to the brink. That said, it really boils down to what many are saying with respect to the current government, which is that Parliament is really a bit of an inconvenience for it. It is a bit of an inconvenience that it would have to go through the processes and scrutiny of this great Parliament, which is a real shame.
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.
It is my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of the government's proposed response to amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7. I applaud this bill and the process that has led to where we are today. It is clear that the government and members of the Senate both agree that we need to support regular RCMP members and reservists by creating a labour relations regime that promotes their right to collective bargaining.
Who could be more deserving of such support than the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service? These heroic men and women combat organized crime and defend our country against terrorists. They guard us from those who deal in illicit drugs and those who commit economic crimes. They provide contract policing services in eight provinces and three territories. This is by no means an exhaustive list of what these brave individuals do to protect Canadians. These men and women, recognized as a symbol of Canada around the world, deserve our respect.
The motion before us today would give members the respect they are due while addressing the key concerns of the Senate.
The first way the motion does that is by removing the RCMP-specific restrictions on what may be included in collective bargaining and arbitral awards.
Second, it would implement a more targeted management rights clause, which focuses on the authorities that the RCMP commissioner needs to ensure effective policing operations.
Together, these two amendments would broaden the scope of what can be debated and included in collective bargaining and constitute an effective response to the main criticisms regarding Bill C-7.
These amendments would ensure the employer and any future RCMP member bargaining agent could engage meaningfully in discussions in good faith on subjects of importance to RCMP members and reservists.
Allow me to provide a few examples of subject matter that could be included in a collective agreement or an arbitral award: first, matters commonly associated with harassment and workplace wellness, including, for example, the promotion of a respectful workplace, early conflict resolution, and workplace remediation; second, general aspects associated with the appointment and appraisals of RCMP members; third, criteria and timing for conducting the appraisals of RCMP members; and fourth, measures to mitigate the impact of discharges and demotions of RCMP members, including workforce adjustment provisions.
Clearly, the government has listened to the concerns raised and has expanded on what may be included in a collective agreement or an arbitral award. As is the practice for other negotiations in the public service, a wide range of other matters can be bargained and included in a collective agreement or an arbitral award. These include rates of pay, hours of work, and leave provisions, such as, designated paid holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, and parental leave.
I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on the management rights clause related to the RCMP commissioner's human resources management responsibilities. This clause was first suggested and adopted in the Senate, and we believe there is much merit to such a clause. In fact, it is proposed that the government adopt a more targeted management rights clause to focus on the authorities that the commissioner needs to ensure effective police operations.
The amended and more targeted management rights clause would allow all proposals related to matters that were covered by RCMP-specific restrictions in Bill C-7 as originally proposed to be discussed at the negotiating table. It would also allow the parties to potentially incorporate these matters in a collective agreement, except where the employer considers that they infringe on the authority of the RCMP commissioner to ensure effective police operations. Should the bargaining agent seek to go to arbitration, the chairperson of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would decide whether the proposal infringes on management rights before the matter could be referred to arbitration.
The adoption of a management rights clause for the RCMP is consistent with the labour relations regime that applies to the rest of the federal public service.
Let me now turn to why it is important to preserve the restrictions that replicate those applying to other areas of the federal public service. Since 1967, matters that are a broad cross-sectional interest, such as pensions, are included for bargaining and dealt with under the legislation to ensure that the public interest is taken into account. Pensions for the rest of the public service are dealt with under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Pensions require a high degree of stability to assure pension plan members that their benefits are secure and will be delivered as expected.
However, the federal government has traditionally consulted with employee representatives on pension issues and is committed to continue this practice. In the case of the RCMP, the RCMP Superannuation Act requires that an RCMP pension advisory committee be established.
The RCMP is a national police service operating within the federal public administration. This is why the proposed labour relations regime for the RCMP was designed to align with the existing federal framework for labour relations and collective bargaining.
Unfortunately, I will not have time to speak to the government's proposed response to the other two amendments, one which concerns the secret ballot votes, and the other which addresses the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board, but I would like to close with a clear and unequivocal statement.
The government is committed to supporting RCMP members and reservists by providing them with a meaningful process for collective bargaining. Our proposed response addresses the key concerns of the Senate. It also takes into account the RCMP's role as a police organization. Finally, it ensures that its labour relations regime is aligned with the regime that applies to other federal public servants.
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will give my colleague a chance to address the matter of the secret ballot with my question.
There seems to be a fairly significant contradiction between the Liberal government's defence of the secret ballot in corrupt United Nations commissions and agencies, for example, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights or the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, which see secret ballots covering the way Canada voted for the election of non-democratic countries to significant positions on these bodies. Saudi Arabia is certainly notable in both of those cases.
How does the hon. member rationalize the objection to the secret ballot amendment before us today at the same time that she talks about respect for members of the RCMP?
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, our government believes that we will bring some fairness back to the collective bargaining regime for members of the RCMP.
We are rejecting the amendment for secret ballots because it is at odds with Bill C-4, which would restore a fair and level playing field to labour relations. We believe that the labour relations board should have the ability to decide whether a vote or a card check is the most appropriate and fair method for certification on a case-by-case basis. There is no reason to treat the RCMP differently in this regard.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you were to seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the recorded division on the amendment to the Opposition motion in the name of the member for Beloeil—Chambly, deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions this day, be further deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders later today; and
That, notwithstanding the Order adopted December 1st, 2016, the provisions under Standing Order 45 respecting the length of bells shall apply today; and
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, following Oral Questions on Tuesday, May 16, 2017, a Member from each recognized party, as well as the Member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères and the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands may make a brief statement.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate 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.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
Joyce Murray LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that the management rights clause would be consistent with the labour relations approach in the rest of the public service. She specified that means if there were something that management believed is contrary to the effectiveness of police operations, if it were to be bargained, it would then go to the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to determine whether it would be in or out of the scope of the bargaining.
The NDP member who spoke previously implied that these management rights could be akin to reinstating the original exclusions, which would put a lot more power as to what to negotiate or not into the hands of the RCMP commissioner. However, we heard in the member's speech that it is actually the PSLREB that would determine whether something was in or out of the scope of bargaining.
I would ask the member to comment on whether this new management rights clause in what is hopefully the final version of Bill C-7 actually provides a neutral party determining what is in or out of the scope of bargaining.