Michel Picard

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. colleague to maintain this question at heart, because we do share the same preoccupation when it comes to harassment.

In terms of this specific issue, we understand that it is part of the exclusion because it is clear in the mandate letter that was addressed to the Minister of Public Safety that we have to address this specific issue. There are solutions to erase this issue, which appears to be imperfect at the moment. However, it is a tough issue and we believe that, with the engagement we have through the Minister of Public Safety, we will address and correct the situation properly without jeopardizing any negotiations with respect to the exclusion aspect.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the RCMP's unique nature, there are police forces at every level: municipal, provincial, and federal. Whether we are talking about contract policing or federal policing with federal laws, the RCMP is a unique entity given its overall national environment, the way it is organized, and the nature of its work.

It is true that the RCMP is seen as a quasi-military organization. There are many reasons we can list as to why the RCMP is a unique entity. However, these men and women put their lives at risk every day to protect the lives of others and, for that reason alone, they deserve exemptions that prevent problems on the ground and keep them safe.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond not only in my capacity as parliamentary secretary, but also as a former civilian member of the RCMP.

When I was a member of the RCMP I witnessed some difficult incidents and saw for myself its unique role. One cannot always compare the RCMP and other police forces.

The RCMP has a unique role because of the levels of service it provides. The exclusions are not what make the RCMP unique. It is because of this existing unique and special role that these exclusions are required, and that can be seen in the field.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the important bill now before us at third reading.

As members are aware, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in January of last year that a number of key provisions of the labour relations framework for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, the court outlined that interfering with the right of RCMP members to the collective bargaining aspect of the labour relations regime in place at the time was an infringement of RCMP members' charter guarantee of the right to freedom of association.

In accordance with the Supreme Court's timeline, that labour relations regime was dissolved on May 17. Right now, RCMP members are being provided with workplace support through the members' workplace services program on an interim basis. However, as I will discuss shortly, the House must move quickly to implement a new legislative framework governing labour relations in our national police force. As such, I invite all members to join us in support of 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.

That this legislation was brought before the House so quickly is a mark of our government's determination to respect not only the ruling of the court, but also, in a timely manner, to respect the constitutional right of the thousands of men and women who serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This government takes the protection and security of Canadians very seriously. Since the RCMP plays an integral role in achieving this objective, it makes sense that we should make every effort to protect the rights of those who protect us.

Let me now turn to how Bill C-7 would achieve these essential goals. In the first instance, as the court made clear in its decision, in order to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a labour relations regime must be based on two fundamental principles: one, it must provide for independence, in the sense that an employee organization must be independent of management; and, two, to comply with the charter, a labour relations regime must provide choice, in the sense that employees have the opportunity to choose for themselves the organization they wish to represent their interests to their employer.

By contrast, to quote the decision of the court, the labour relations framework known as the staff relations representative program was:

… not an association in any meaningful sense, nor a form of exercise of the right to freedom of association. It is simply an internal human relations scheme imposed on RCMP members by management.

Bill C-7 would enable the very opposite. It speaks to that which is the essence of bargaining as a collective: an independent organization, not beholden to management, freely chosen by the people whose interests it was created to represent and uphold.

RCMP members and reservists, for the first time, would enjoy the same labour relations rights that other employees in the federal workplace have enjoyed for more than four decades: independence and their choice of representation.

Before I get into the details of the bill, I think it worthwhile to remind the House how the bill came to look the way it does. The Government of Canada could not simply impose these changes on RCMP members. It was important that the government hear and take into account the views of RCMP regular members.

RCMP members were consulted through a variety of channels, from an online survey to town hall sessions in more than a dozen communities across the country. More than 9,000 regular members completed the survey, and over 650 people participated in the town hall sessions.

At the same time, recognizing that the RCMP, through police service agreements, provides police services in many jurisdictions across Canada, and that a change in labour relations may have implications for those agreements, Public Safety Canada engaged in discussions with the provinces and territories that are served by the RCMP.

The bill before us today is in keeping with the decision of the Supreme Court and also with the results of consultations with RCMP regular members and reservists and contracting jurisdictions.

The views and preferences expressed during those consultations with RCMP members and reservists were clear. A large majority stated that they wanted: first, the option for a unionized RCMP; second, independence from RCMP management; third, representation in a single national bargaining unit of RCMP members and reservists by a bargaining agent whose principle mandate is the representation of RCMP members; and fourth, binding arbitration with no right to strike.

Bill C-7 addresses each of these four key points, which come from RCMP regular members and reservists themselves. RCMP members and reservists told us they wanted the option to unionize. This bill would provide them with the option to choose whether they wish to be represented by a bargaining agent, in a sense, a union. They told us they wanted independence from RCMP management, and this bill would enable a bargaining agent that is independent from the influence of RCMP management.

A majority said they wanted representation in a single national bargaining unit of RCMP members and reservists by a bargaining agent whose principal mandate is the representation of RCMP members. This is a point worthy of further explanation.

The government agrees that should RCMP members choose to be represented by a union, that bargaining agent must have the representation of police forces as its only responsibility. To do otherwise opens the possibility of a potential conflict in loyalties. It would be unfair and unwise to put RCMP members in the position of having to police members of another bargaining unit with which the members were affiliated.

The government also agrees that the bargaining agent should be a single national body rather than having the national character of the RCMP altered by the formation of regional unions.

We are confident that Canadians will see these provisions as appropriate. Again, most RCMP members themselves believe this to be the best course. Indeed, one of the reasons it is important for us to adopt this legislation quickly is that since the previous labour relations regime was dissolved on May 17, the RCMP finds itself in an interim period. The sooner Bill C-7 is in place, the sooner we can ensure that regional bargaining agents or bargaining agents that are not exclusively focused on policing do not begin to establish themselves within our national police force.

The bill would also achieve the independence and choice demanded by the court decision by bringing RCMP members and reservists under the governance of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, thus aligning RCMP labour relations with that of the rest of the federal public service. This means RCMP regular members and reservists would have the right to negotiate a collective agreement, as bargaining agents have been negotiating on behalf of other federal employees for decades, and as is the case for every other police service in Canada.

Existing provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act that exclude employees in managerial and confidential positions would apply to the RCMP. As well, when the act is applied to the RCMP, officers holding the rank of inspector and above would be excluded from representation.

This bill would enable the negotiation of collective agreements that would cover things one would expect to find in such agreements, from rates of pay and pay increments to hours of work and work scheduling. RCMP regular members and reservists would be able to negotiate, among other things, overtime and extra duty pay; shift and weekend premiums; designated paid holidays, vacation and sick leave; parental and maternity leave; career development; and education. In other words they could negotiate provisions we have become accustomed to seeing for many, many years in the collective agreements that have been negotiated in the federal public service and in public and private sector organizations across Canada.

Further, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be charged with administering the process for RCMP members, just as it does for all other employees of the Treasury Board of Canada.

As one would expect, Bill C-7 takes into account the particular circumstances of the RCMP and the important role of the RCMP as Canada’s national police force in ensuring the safety and security of Canadians.

Accordingly, it restricts certain matters from negotiation or inclusion in any arbitral awards that impact the RCMP's ability to operate in an effective and accountable manner.

Things such as law enforcement techniques, including methods of interrogation, crime analysis, witness protection, DNA collection, search and seizure techniques, and so on, would be non-negotiable.

Other exclusions from collective bargaining or arbitration would include, for example, the uniform, order of dress and equipment of the RCMP; deployment; and conduct and discipline, including inappropriate behaviour, commonly recognized as harassment, and enforcement techniques. These kinds of exceptions are by no means unusual, but as I know, the issue of conduct, including harassment, has been the subject of much discussion in the House and in committee, allow me to reiterate that it is a priority for our government to ensure that all RCMP members and employees feel safe and respected at work.

The Minister of Public Safety has made clear directly to the RCMP commissioner that in dealing with harassment we expect comprehensive, transparent investigations; serious disciplinary measures; support for victims; and concrete action to end toxic workplace behaviour.

As the House has been informed, the minister has asked the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to undertake a comprehensive review of the RCMP's policies and procedures on workplace harassment and to evaluate the implementation of the recommendation it made in 2013. Going forward, the minister will continue to be active on this important part of his mandate from the Prime Minister to ensure that the RCMP and all other parts of the public safety portfolio are free from harassment and sexual violence.

I will close by returning to the four key elements RCMP members told us they wanted to see in a new labour relations framework. They want the option for a unionized RCMP; independence from RCMP management; representation in a single, national, bargaining unit of RCMP members and reservists by a bargaining agent whose principal mandate is the representation of RCMP members; and binding arbitration with no right to strike.

It is fitting to end my remarks today on the last element. I believe it speaks to the commitment and dedication of the members of our national police service that members themselves have told us they should not be allowed to withdraw their service.

Clearly, RCMP members understand their responsibility, and this government understands its responsibility, which is to respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and bring forward a bill that assures RCMP regular members and reservists of their charter right to freedom of association. That is the bill we have before us now, and I urge all members of this House to join the government in supporting its expeditious passage.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank and congratulate my colleague from Durham for his inspiring speech. I would like to think that the common ground he spoke about will eventually convince members on his side of the House to support the bill.

We hear my colleague's demands quite clearly. However, with respect to the secret ballot, does he not think that the two specific elements in the court's decision are choice and independence?

Since the court set only two criteria, would it not be feasible, and even preferable, to allow RCMP members, as professionals, to make their choice and then determine how to choose their union? This vote, regardless of format, happens at the second stage. By responding to the court's ruling, we can finally give them the choice they need.

[Canada Border Services Agency, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to meeting its international obligations to prevent the export of goods that could pose a security threat.

In 2014-15, the Canada Border Services Agency conducted a review of its export program and worked to tighten controls through a framework that clarifies the program's mandate and places greater emphasis on risk mitigation strategies.

In response to the Auditor General's report, the Canada Border Services Agency came up with an action plan, and most of the recommendations should be implemented by December 2016. Once again, the government welcomes the Auditor General's report, and we agree with his findings and recommendations.

[Canada Border Services Agency, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raised an important issue arising from the Auditor General's recent report on the Canada Border Services Agency's export control program.

I would like to start by confirming that the government welcomes the Auditor General's report and agrees that the previous government did not provide the Canada Border Services Agency with the necessary tools to properly and effectively prevent the export of goods that contravene Canada's export laws. The audit report did recognize the agency's success in the areas of risk assessment, counter-proliferation, and seizure of property obtained through crime, such as stolen vehicles.

As the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness told the House on February 2, the Canada Border Services Agency accepted all of the Auditor General's recommendations. There is an action plan to implement them, and most of them will be implemented before the end of this year.

The Canada Border Services Agency will focus on implementing a consistent process to record export targets and examination results. It will also implement the necessary measures to fill gaps in front-line operations, and it will institute a standard procedure that will enable officers to identify and examine high-risk non-reported shipments. It will also upgrade the automated export declaration system.

It is the responsibility of the Canada Border Services Agency to facilitate the flow of goods on which our prosperity depends, while safeguarding Canada's security and the security of our trading partners.

As the Auditor General notes in his report, Canada exported $529 billion worth of goods in 2014, a figure that represents 27% of our GDP. In 2014-15, the CBSA had 13,768 full-time equivalents, of which approximately 7,200 are uniformed CBSA officers. I am sure we all acknowledge and appreciate the challenging and indispensable work they do.

Canada Border Services Agency officers cleared approximately 15 million commercial imports and there were 900,000 export declarations in 2014-15.

CBSA personnel assess the risk of export shipments based on export declarations and intelligence. They work closely with their national and international law enforcement partners in order to facilitate the implementation of a safe and secure international trade system for exports.

The CBSA performs vital duties on behalf of all Canadians and for all our clients around the world. The Auditor General's advice was well received by the government, and we will work with the Canada Border Services Agency to ensure that it has all the tools it needs to be a world-class organization that is able to protect Canadians and the countries receiving our exports, while ensuring the free and safe flow of goods, which is vital to an economy like ours.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the legislative measure introduced by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, which proposes changes to Canada's firearms classification system.

Our government pledged to take measures to protect Canadian communities from armed violence. We believe in balanced and effective gun control that puts public safety first without subjecting law-abiding firearms owners to unfair treatment. Unfortunately, the legislative measure we are debating is contrary to both of those principles.

Bill C-230 would amend the Criminal Code to provide a definition of the term “variant”. This term is already used in the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted made in accordance with the Criminal Code, to indicate variants to prescribed firearms that are already listed.

It was added in 1992 in response to the considerable increase in new firearm models available in the civilian market. The intent was to ensure that new firearms entering the market between regulation updates would be covered until the next update.

Although the term is not explicitly defined, the RCMP determines what constitutes a variant by using long-standing, well-established criteria and a standardized process to assess whether there is a connection between the firearm in question and a firearm prescribed under the regulations. If the RCMP determines that a firearm is a variant of another weapon that is already included in the regulations, the firearm is automatically classified as a restricted or prohibited firearm.

Under Bill C-230, a variant would be defined as “a firearm that has the unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm”. That would be a change from the RCMP's long-standing, well-established criteria.

The bill would also amend the definitions of restricted and prohibited firearms in the Criminal Code by making all newly defined variants prohibited or restricted firearms.

While I am certain that the intention behind the proposal is honourable, I must acknowledge that it is not one our government can support. If such a definition were to be established, it would have a number of significant and problematic sequences. During my time today, I will focus on the two most problematic elements from our government's perspective.

It would mean a massive and indiscriminate reclassification of firearms. Because the proposed definition does not reflect the well-established criteria that the RCMP uses to assess whether a firearm is a variant, it would cause tens of thousands of firearms to be reclassified. Many firearms would move unnecessarily from their present classification to a more-controlled class, including certain hunting rifles and shotguns. Indeed, some currently non-restricted hunting rifles and shotguns would become restricted. We should keep in mind that restricted firearms are not permitted to be used for hunting.

Given that many gun owners may have the licence privileges to own a restricted firearm, they would suddenly find themselves in illegal possession of their firearms. To come back into compliance, they would have to apply to the RCMP for a restricted licence, which is available under the Firearms Act for use in lawful occupation, gun collecting, target shooting, or competition at an approved shooting range or club. Therefore, in effect the bill would mean that many hunters and other responsible gun owners would have to dispose of their firearms because those would simply not be the purposes for which they owned their guns.

On the one hand, Bill C-230 would move many firearms to a more restricted class to the detriment of law-abiding gun owners. Yet, on the other hand, it would also have the effect of reclassifying thousands of firearms to a less controlled class, with potentially serious repercussions.

Permit me to draw the attention of members to one particularly troubling example from a public safety perspective. Under this legislation, certain prohibited assault weapons would become non-restricted. Presently, for example, a semi-automatic firearm that is a variant of the AK-47 assault rifle is prohibited based on the regulations. However, if we were to adopt the proposed definition of a variant in Bill C-230, in other words, a firearm that has an unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm, a firearm virtually identical to the AK-47 could become non-restricted. This would occur because, according to the proposed definition, the slightest change of the design of the frame or receiver of the firearm would mean that it would no longer be considered a variant of a virtually identical gun.

As a result, we would likely see a dramatic increase in the circulation of firearms that are currently prohibited because they would become available to some two million licence holders. People would be able to import, own, transfer, and transport these firearms more freely. What is more, we would not be able to track these weapons because it is not mandatory to register unrestricted firearms.

I hope that members on all sides of the House will agree that this raises serious public safety concerns and provides a lot of food for thought. This bill also flies in the face of our government's promise to get dangerous assault rifles off the streets.

I can guarantee members on all sides of the House that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness are working diligently to keep this important election promise.

As I said from the start, we will maintain a balanced and effective firearms policy that makes public safety a priority while ensuring that law-abiding gun owners are treated with fairness and respect.

Our government will continue to work with all Canadians, including gun owners, to meet our common goal of reducing gun violence in Canada.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 9th, 2016]

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

I am pleased to hear that all members of the House have so much respect for the RCMP as an institution.

Although my response may seem inadequate, I am repeating the response I heard from some people who have been the victims of this kind of behaviour. Despite the pain and difficulties caused by such incidents, these people believe that a solution exists within the institution and there is a way to find that solution from within.

We asked the commissioner very clearly to share the results of the investigations, because this kind of behaviour is simply unacceptable and cannot continue.

In any case, a system was recently implemented, and we need to see how effective it is and give the RCMP some credit for putting it in place.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any ongoing settlement with the court. However, there has been a clear demand to Commissioner Paulson to provide us with a deep investigation of what is going on. With respect to the case going on in court, we are looking forward to a settlement.