Debates of May 16th, 2017

Bill C-7—Time Allocation Motion

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, back to my colleague's comments, we got the government's response five days ago. The President of the Treasury Board likes to talk about how we are taking into consideration the amendments unanimously passed in the Senate, and there were four of them. It took the Liberals, by the way, just under a year, 11 months, from June 2016, when they were first presented with the Senate's report.

One must ask what the responsibilities are of this House when they bring in time allocation on something as significant as this, because what is known as the unionization bill is important to the RCMP. It is important to many of its members.

The member who led it in the Senate is a member of the government that agreed unanimously with the amendments they are bringing forth, but the President of the Treasury Board has come back to us saying that they accept some of this but do not accept all of it.

The Senate did the scrutiny work through independent senators and partisan senators in both parties and brought back a report, and we are allowed only a very tight period of time to debate the ones the government decided arbitrarily it is going to accept and the ones it is going to reject. It seems to me that this push to not have debate in the House is typical of what we are seeing time and time again with the repeated time allocation motions coming to the floor of this House. This is a government that campaigned on doing the exact opposite: coming to the House and hearing fulsome discussions of these issues from all parliamentarians from all sides.

I represent members of the RCMP in my riding, as most of us do in this House, and I have spoken with them. They have legitimate concerns on several fronts. All of a sudden, we are told, “Let us cut the time short on this, because we need to push it through.”

I am going to ask the President of the Treasury Board why, when he says it is so important to get this right, he is cutting out the right of parliamentarians to help get it right.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I can tell members that we take the work of Parliament, both in this place and in the Senate, seriously, which is why we have accepted amendments to this legislation both from the House and the Senate, which I believe reflects our respect for Parliament and our desire to ensure that this is the best possible legislation.

Again, with respect to the previous government, in January 2015, there was a Supreme Court decision. When we formed government 11 months later, there had been no legislative action to respond to that. We, as a new government, have responded. I believe that we have the right balance that reflects the consultations conducted with the RCMP and the intent of the amendments of the Senate.

There is one Senate amendment we rejected, which I will speak to specifically, on the secret ballot issue, because it completely contradicted the principle of Bill C-4, another piece of legislation on this. We viewed it as being an anti-union, anti-organized labour amendment that did not reflect the views of this government. I talked to my colleagues from the New Democratic Party. They were in agreement that it was not one we could support based on our government's respect for organized labour within the public service and broadly. We did not support. That is one we actually rejected.

However, clearly, we took seriously the amendments proposed by the Senate, including eliminating many of the exclusions, and we are in a position now to move forward. We also took seriously the amendment from this House on the Government Employees Compensation Act. We do respect this place, but there is an urgency for us to move forward with this legislation for the RCMP.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, presumably, if we want to get something like this right, we have to do some consultation. My understanding is that none of the prospective bargaining agents were aware of the language of the motion prior to Thursday. Could the government confirm to us that management of the RCMP did not have a sneak peek or special input into the composition of the motion as well.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the consultations with RCMP members were broadly participated in by RCMP members across Canada. That occurred, again, under the previous government. However, it is my understanding that they were extensive consultations, which is why we felt we had a good understanding of the direction provided by those consultations, and that is reflected in this legislation. It provides collective bargaining rights to the RCMP for the first time ever and the right to collective bargaining, leading to binding arbitration.

The consultations were quite clear. RCMP members were not looking for the right to strike, but were looking for the right to have collective bargaining and ultimately binding arbitration. This is a significant step forward. It is fair to RCMP members, for whom we have remarkable respect for their important work in protecting our communities. We are looking forward to moving forward.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the President of the Treasury Board, it is important to remember that Bill C-7 represents a historic turning point for RCMP members. It would give them the labour relations framework to allow them to pursue their collective interests in the way they wanted.

Could the minister please tell us how Bill C-7 specifically provides the framework for which members have asked?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Avalon for his hard work on this file. The bill is a priority for us. It responds to what was initially a Supreme Court decision in January 2015. The previous government did not respond expediently to that decision. When we were elected and took office in November 2015, we had a responsibility to act.

The consultations that had occurred made it very clear that RCMP members were looking for collective bargaining rights and leading to binding arbitration, a national union to represent them, and the union be focused on largely representing RCMP members. We believe the legislation does reflect those consultations. We are also comfortable with the input both from the Senate and from the House. Again, there was an amendment on GECA, as an example, and the other place with respect to the elimination some of the exclusions. We have listened to and engaged not only RCMP members, but also the House and the Senate.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe no one on this side of the House or inside the House is questioning the right of RCMP members. It is in the backdrop of the Supreme Court ruling that this work and this legislation is being undertaken. The real problem is what is becoming a daily occurrence, and that is the issue of the government invoking time allocation.

I go back to what the government said in the throne speech, which was that to give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the government would provide more time for open debate, free votes, and reform and strengthen committees. However, we have just five days to debate this, while an unelected Senate took its time and issued a report to the government. The government came back with a response late last Thursday and an elected Parliament was only given five days to review this and very limited time to debate this. In effect, the government is allowing the Senate to do the heavy lifting and we, in an elected Parliament, are just an afterthought.

Why the hypocrisy? You talked about more open debate and yet you invoke time allocation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member to address his questions to the Chair.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, why the hypocrisy with respect to time allocation, not allowing this elected body to have a free and strong debate on the issues that came back from the Senate?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, under our government, committees of the House have become more independent. I was here for almost 10 years in opposition when the Harper government ran committees of Parliament as branch plants of ministers' offices. That was unacceptable then, and we have rendered committees more independent of the government. There are a lot of free votes and government members frequently express their views, or those of their constituents, in those free votes.

The member used the term “hypocrisy”. I do not like using that term in Parliament. However, respectfully for the hon. member, the previous government prorogued Parliament to avoid confidence votes. If we want to talk about respect for Parliament and if the Conservatives want to use the term “hypocrisy” in this place, they should look in the mirror. Proroguing Parliament to avoid a confidence vote was a low point in the life of Parliament since 1867.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about time allocation, and I am curious about the sequence of events here. The bill was introduced at the Senate on May 31. The Senate took 20 days to consider the bill and send amendments back to the government. The Senate passed the amendments on June 21.

The government has had almost 11 months to consider the amendments from the Senate. They are now being brought before the House, and we have five days to consider them. Looking at those five days, there are really only two days for actual debate, one of which is a half day. This is the pattern with respect to the timeline for that.

Why did it take the government 11 months to consider the amendments from the Senate? Why is it only allowing five days for their consideration in the House, with an actual debate time of only two days?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the legislation has received over 16 hours of debate in the House. Four committee hearings have heard from 25 witnesses. Our government has accepted amendments from both the House and the Senate. I cannot remember the previous Harper government accepting amendments from the other place or from opposition parties.

We believe the time has come to act, to respect and respond to the Supreme Court decision of January 2015, and to do so in a way that not only respects the Supreme Court decision but also the broad consultations conducted with the RCMP.

I know the New Democrats, as a party, have a strong belief in collective bargaining rights. For the first time ever, this will provide the RCMP collective bargaining rights and the opportunity to be represented by a union or potentially unions. It was clear in the consultations that there was a desire to have a national union representative. This is a significant step forward, and I look forward to us making that step together as Parliament.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my question for the hon.President of the Treasury Board is this. Time allocation is being used time after time. My colleagues have made the point adequately that the government has had since June 21 of last year to review the amendments from the Senate. This is important legislation. Of course collective bargaining for the RCMP is not being created in the legislation through the wisdom or good will of the governing party. It is a requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada. We want to move ahead with it.

However, I find it galling that we are being told we need time allocation on the bill, which will almost certainly mean that either members of the Bloc Québécois or the Green Party will be allowed to speak, but not both. I find that distressing. Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board could shed some light on this. I cannot see any reason for urgency, such as slapping time allocation on the bill, unless the rumours of an imminent prorogation are true, which I hope they are not.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, one of the findings of the consultation was the desire among RCMP members to have one national union representing them. Ultimately, that decision will be made by them. It is important we move forward to enable that to occur.

For the leader of the Green Party, with whom I have worked for a long time and for whom I have tremendous respect, the Supreme Court decision was over two years ago and the previous government did not act. This is significant legislation and it is complex legislation. This would be a significant step forward for the RCMP. We look forward to moving it forward.

There have been 16 hours of debate in the House. Committees of the House have reviewed the legislation. The Senate has been active as well. We have accepted amendments from the House and the Senate. The member will recall that accepting amendments was not something the previous government did. We believe in constructive relations and the acceptance of amendments, which can have the potential to strengthen legislation. We are actively engaging Parliament, both the House and the other place.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the House is well aware that the Liberal Party was in third party position. I spent over two and a half years working on issues like sexual harassment and harassment in the RCMP at the request of members who were the victims through much of this. One of the recommendations in the report entitled “Shattered Dreams” and another one that I had done called for the need to unionize and for a collective agreement with the RCMP, in addition to civilian oversight, in order for members to have somewhere outside of the force to get help.

I asked several times in the last year when the legislation was going to go forward. From my perspective, there was a time issue with respect to seeing some movement in the RCMP, so the great members of the RCMP would have some additional protection.

My colleague has met with several of the women whom I have referenced and he is well aware of the personal stories of the RCMP. Would he share one or more of those stories with the House?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the important work she did on sexual harassment in the RCMP. It was pioneering work at the time. She undertook an important leadership role.

Every member of the House, regardless of partisanship, understands it is absolutely essential that the RCMP be a healthy workplace free of harassment and sexual violence. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness feels strongly on this and he has acted. He has worked with the RCMP and the commissioner. Our government is absolutely committed to whatever steps are necessary to ensure RCMP members, trainees, and employees feel safe and respected among their colleagues and supervisors.

Reports that describe similar serious and long-standing concerns relating to harassment within the RCMP make it very clear there has been a real problem that needs to be addressed. As a government, we are seized with this.

The issues identified bring significant cost to the victims' well-being and health and to the reputation and credibility of the RCMP. It is absolutely essential that we not only act to protect the health and well-being of members, but also defend the reputation of the RCMP on which Canadians depend to provide security, safety, and law enforcement across our country.

I again thank the hon. member for her continued work on this. Our government takes it seriously and will continue to take it seriously.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is kind of unbecoming for the President of the Treasury Board to answer every question by laying it at the feet of the previous government when it took 11 months, almost a year, to bring it here today. He still has not answered the question as to why it took 11 months and all of a sudden there is a rush to get this done.

Why did it take you almost a year to bring this back to the House?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It did not take me almost a year. I would remind the member to address questions to the Chair.

The hon. President of the Treasury Board for a brief answer, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that there have been 16 hours of debate in the House on this matter. There are amendments both from this place, the House, and the other place, the Senate. There have been four committee hearings at which 25 witnesses were heard, but that is also built on the consultations done across the country under the previous government by the RCMP, which I understand were quite extensive. That being the case, we are in a situation now where it is important to proceed. It is over two years since the Supreme Court decision, and we are moving forward with amendments that reflect the will of both this House and the Senate.

We look forward to the enactment of this legislation, which would provide RCMP members, for the first time ever, with the collective bargaining rights they deserve.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Ms. Carole Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Ms. Carole Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.