Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-7 and contribute to the debate on the bill.
I will start by echoing the thanks that other members have offered today to the men and women in the RCMP for their service to the country. What better way to thank them than to grant them the long overdue right to bargain collectively with their employer. It is one that unfortunately took the Supreme Court to weigh in on for it to be granted. Nevertheless, we have come to a place where we can now recognize that right. It is a good thing for the country. We in the NDP are concerned to make the bill the best it can be and to honour the right to bargain collectively to the maximum possible extent.
This issue has become personal for me. It came up while I was canvassing during the last election. I knocked on the door of an RCMP member who lives in my riding. He asked what I thought about this. Of course, intellectually, I have been on the side of labour and workers' rights all my life, but this was a guy who was working for the RCMP was frustrated about things that were happening in his workplace, which he thought could be going better. He did not feel there were meaningful avenues for RCMP members to complain within the organization that would really be heard, because he felt that management ultimately controlled all of those processes. He felt that collective bargaining was the way to start getting those concerns addressed.
Although he mentioned pay and benefits, it was interesting that a lot of the concerns he raised were not about that. I certainly got the impression, first and foremost, that what he and many of his fellow members were looking for in collective bargaining was the ability to address workplace safety and health issues. As we have heard from some RCMP members, some of it had to do with harassment within the force. For others it was staffing ratios and how many officers are responding to calls, particularly in remote and northern communities, and what that means for the safety of RCMP members who do respond alone.
The impression I got that day is echoed by the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, which says, “Unfortunately the way it stands, this bill is flawed by removing vital matters from the bargaining table such as disciplinary measures and allocation of resources”.
I take it from that that the conversation I had during the election with the RCMP member in my riding was representative of at least some, and perhaps many, RCMP members across the country. Some have already organized within a voluntary association to say that what they really want to weigh in on at the bargaining table, aside from pay and benefits, is their work conditions and the threats to their safety that sometimes arise because of decisions made by management about who will respond to what calls and in what way.
It would be a mistake for the government not to see this as an opportunity and to just minimally satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Court decision, but rather to create a meaningful mechanism by which RCMP members who have the experience on the ground, those who are getting to see first-hand the way policies designed by management are playing out for individual officers across the country, to weigh in on these kinds of decisions.
The Supreme Court ruling was quite clear. We all know in this chamber that simply being able to discuss something at the bargaining table is no guarantee that any particular conclusion will be drawn or that management will not maintain its prerogative with respect to a particular issue.
As we have talked about collective bargaining and what should and should not be included under the purview of bargaining, I think it would be helpful to refer to some of what the Supreme Court said in its decision about bargaining, what its intent is and why it matters.
I will quote at length from the decision. It states:
As social beings, our freedom to act with others is a primary condition of community life, human progress and civilized society. Through association, individuals have been able to participate in determining and controlling the immediate circumstances of their lives, and the rules, mores and principles which govern the communities in which they live.
Freedom of association is most essential in those circumstances where the individual is liable to be prejudiced by the actions of some larger and more powerful entity, like the government or an employer.
In this case, it is both.
The decision continues with:
Association has always been the means through which political, cultural and racial minorities, religious groups and workers have sought to attain their purposes and fulfill their aspirations; it has enabled those who would otherwise be vulnerable and ineffective to meet on more equal terms the power and strength of those with whom their interests interact and, perhaps, conflict.
This, I think, is what we are hearing from RCMP members. It is a strong feeling that the means at their disposal to address issues in their workplace are ineffective, when we hear the sense of frustration that comes with feeling vulnerable and not having a fair process through which to challenge a person or an entity much more powerful than oneself.
I would say that no small part of what RCMP members sought to achieve through this litigation process, which ultimately terminated in the Supreme Court ruling that they do have a right to collective bargaining, was the freedom to pursue their goals within the workplace. We know that some of the most important goals are about workplace safety and health and less about pay and benefits.
The Supreme Court recognized in its decision that this ability is what makes collective bargaining important. It said, for instance, that “a process of collective bargaining will not be meaningful if it denies employees the power to pursue their goals.”
The Supreme Court continues with:
The balance necessary to ensure the meaningful pursuit of workplace goals can be disrupted in many ways. Laws and regulations may restrict the subjects that can be discussed, or impose arbitrary outcomes.
I think that is certainly what we are seeing with respect to some issues in the bill before us. A law—in this case, Bill C-7—would restrict the freedom of RCMP members to be able to pursue their goals within collective bargaining. That is why we in the NDP find some of the exclusions so concerning. The Supreme Court has rightly said that what makes collective bargaining important is the freedom for employees to be able to pursue their own goals that they determine within the workplace.
We have all heard stories about RCMP members responding to calls alone in remote or northern communities and the threat to their safety and security that such a situation poses. We have heard some of the debates around that. We have heard stories recently in the news about persistent allegations of sexual harassment and the powerlessness that some RCMP members feel in being able to raise those complaints, so I can understand why they would like to be able to weigh in on those issues and why they feel that a process that puts them at the table as an equal partner in negotiating the way that these issues are going to be dealt with is the way that they feel it is best done, and that yet another regime whereby the government, along with the commissioner, decides how those things are going to be decided may, in the opinion of some members, not be adequate.
Certainly, given that collective bargaining has been prohibited in one way, shape, or form in the RCMP since 1918, there have been a lot of opportunities for government-led or commissioner-led solutions to address these kinds of persistent problems within the RCMP, yet we deal with them today. We have a new government now that is going to try in its own way to deal with those things.
Our modest proposal is that perhaps the time has come to let employees in at the ground level at the table as an equal in bargaining about how some of these issues are going to be dealt with.
Of course, that does not guarantee any particular outcome. It does not mean that the employees are going to be successful at the table. It is just to say that it makes sense to let them raise those issues at the bargaining table if they see them as important issues, and we know from some members that they do.
Why not let them raise those issues at the table and make a determination, based on a concrete proposal, on whether or not what they are saying makes sense and whether it is consistent with what we have heard is the unique nature of the RCMP as a national police force? Let that be decided once the proposals are on the table, instead of prejudging the issue and saying that any proposals that the members of the RCMP could possibly come up with are somehow not going to be true to the unique nature of the RCMP as a national police force.
I submit that many members of the RCMP—frankly, most, if not all—understand the nature of the workplace that they work in, are just as committed to the RCMP as a national police force, are just as committed to the important role that the RCMP plays within Canada, and are interested in advancing solutions that would be in the interests, yes, of themselves but also of the RCMP, which I do not think need be seen as mutually exclusive. What we are proposing is simply that some of these exclusions do not make a lot of sense, or, if they do, we have not yet heard why they do.
We have heard some arguments about timeliness. We have heard that we are in a rush to get the bill through because we only have until May 16. I submit that is not a real reason. That is something that reasonable people can deal with either by simply omitting those exclusions or, if that is legislatively complex because of some of the frameworks that are already in place, by simply putting a timeline on when agreements made may supersede whatever is currently in place legislatively. These are things that can be worked out at committee. I am hopeful that the government will listen and that we might be able to reduce the number of exclusions that are in this bill through the committee stage, which is why we will be voting to send this bill to committee. It is not because it is perfect but because we need a bill that recognizes the right of RCMP members to bargain collectively, and we are anxious for the opportunity to submit proposals as to how we might improve this particular piece of legislation.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that the Supreme Court also said that limits can reasonably be imposed on collective bargaining. This is something that my Conservative colleague was alluding to earlier. The Supreme Court said:
Section 1 of the Charter permits Parliament to enact laws that limit Charter rights if it establishes that the limits are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This requires that the objective of the measure be pressing and substantial, and that the means by which the objective is furthered be proportionate, i.e. that the means are rationally connected to the law's objective, minimally impair the...right, and are proportionate in effect.
The government argued—at court, not in the House today—that the point of denying RCMP members the right to collective bargaining was to “maintain and enhance public confidence in the neutrality, stability and reliability of the RCMP by providing a police force that is independent and objective.”
I note that the Supreme Court found that argument unsatisfactory, but it seems to me that similar arguments are really what are underpinning the exclusions in Bill C-7 of certain matters from the bargaining process. While denying collective bargaining altogether is not the same as excluding certain matters from bargaining, it is worth considering the Supreme Court's response to the government's argument in court:
First, it is not apparent how an exclusion from a statutorily protected collective bargaining process ensures the neutrality, stability or even reliability. The exclusion of RCMP members from the federal public service collective bargaining regime...fostered, rather than inhibited, dissatisfaction and unrest within the RCMP.
Furthermore,
...it is not established that permitting meaningful collective bargaining for RCMP members will disrupt the stability of the police force or affect the public's perception of its neutrality. The government offered no persuasive evidence to that effect. Empirical research tends to show the opposite, as does provincial experience with unionized police forces....
I would put to the House today that the same is true, mutatis mutandis, of the exclusions to bargaining contained in Bill C-7. Those were arguments having to do with not giving the RCMP the right to bargain collectively at all. However, we could say that a similar test really needs to be applied to each exclusion. It is not clear to me that there is any great purpose served by excluding some important issues from the bargaining process, and I would really like to hear from government members with respect to these exclusions.
Without guaranteeing any particular outcome if employees brought a proposal about staffing guidelines or, if they did, that they would be successful in the process, how would excluding, say, staffing ratios from the collective bargaining regime make the RCMP more reliable, more neutral, or more stable? We just have not heard the argument for the necessity of these things.
We heard a vague comment earlier from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board that there are certain things that have just always been within the purview of the commissioner and that there is a managerial prerogative there.
I would say that begs the question. What is at issue is what will be under the managerial prerogative. That would be all well and good, perhaps, if we were making an argument in court where the law was established, but as legislators in the House, it will be for us to decide what is within the purview of management's prerogative. That is what we are contesting here today.
We have a pretty good test coming out of the Supreme Court decision. It is the same test that would apply to whether RCMP members should have the right to bargain collectively overall. It could be applied to each exclusion to ask for arguments and evidence that the RCMP would be jeopardized as an institution if these things were submitted to bargaining.
That is a hard case to make, and I think it is particularly hard to make in light of the fact that this legislation would not provide a right to strike. Disagreements would go to binding arbitration, and in their deliberations the arbitrators would be instructed to take into account the unique role of the RCMP as a national police force.
If proposals were put on the table by RCMP members at bargaining, it is clear through Bill C-7 that whatever could not be resolved, presumably because RCMP management felt that those proposals were unreasonable, would go to arbitration. As part of their mandate, arbitrators would have to consider whether those proposals respected the unique role of the RCMP as a national police force, and also, by implication, whether any of those proposals would somehow be a threat to the stability, neutrality, or reliability of the RCMP as a national police force.
The RCMP's mandate and unique role, a term we are using here, would be well protected within that process, so these exclusions seem to me to be redundant. In the absence of further argument from the government, although I will stress again that I do not think we have been given anything that would count as an argument for any of these specific exclusions, it seems to me that the unique role of the RCMP is quite well protected by this legislation, so the exclusions are redundant.
As I say, I am hopeful that these are things that can be corrected at committee. If we do that, we will end up with a proposal that can better reflect the desire of the RCMP members who have been vocal on this case. That is what we should be striving for. Minimally meeting the conditions of the Supreme Court decision is really not enough.
We have an opportunity here to respect the spirit of what collective bargaining should be. We have a mechanism already in the bill—and it is not exclusion—to ensure that the unique role the RCMP plays as a national police force is respected and that there is a way to have it respected within that process by the arbitrator.
These are the reasons we feel the bill should go to committee, where it can be better explored. We will be looking for arguments from government on specific exclusions. In the absence of those arguments, we will be presenting proposals to improve this legislation and make sure that RCMP members get the right to bargain collectively, both in spirit as well as in letter.
