Nick Whalen

[Situation in Indigenous Communities, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for his inspiring words earlier, not only to the people in the House but to anyone who might be listening at home on CPAC.

Our party campaigned and won on a promise to implement the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. The path forward under that is very long and will not necessarily provide solutions immediately, so in addition to those recommendations, I ask the member for his personal opinion on things we might be able to do to allow us to see more immediate results. I think that would be helpful to the House.

[The Budget, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Haldimand—Norfolk especially for her approval of the increases to GIS and the old age security, and also the priorities we put on infrastructure spending. These are also important to the people of St. John's East.

What I find a little unusual is the member's feelings on the idea of balancing budgets and that the balanced budget scheme the Conservatives passed is something that the current government needs to follow. However, the previous Conservative government added $130 billion of new debt that Canada will have to pay for. Over the past year in the election campaign, the Liberal Party campaigned long and hard on the idea of using deficit spending to finance growth. This is exactly what we have done.

Therefore, while the member would say the Conservatives are going to balance the budget at all costs, it was a promise they could hardly ever deliver upon, whereas the Liberal government's plan has achieved the confidence of Canadians using deficit spending to finance growth. Why can the member not look to the House and say that deficit spending is something Canadians support and voted for in the previous election, and it is exactly what the government is delivering?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question regarding the pension issues for the RCMP.

My understanding is that the legislation being put forward now excludes amending a number of bills. There is a number of bills that would not be affected by the labour negotiating rights, and the tribunal would not have the right to review a number of different aspects related to the collective bargaining.

Various issues, including issues related to workplace duties, pensions, roles and responsibilities, right to strike, and a number of issues like these, as set out in the legislation, would not be the responsibility or purview of the Public Service Labour Relations Board in respect of overseeing the bargaining agent in the collective rights. Those would be reserved for the commissioner under the existing RCMP legislation.

As was noted earlier by my colleagues, if the member feels that this is something that needs to be brought forward in this legislation at this time, the best place to raise those issues would be in committee, to see if the committee process could address her concerns. Indeed, there will be further opportunities to address these types of perceived deficits in the regulatory regime as it affects the RCMP over the course of this mandate.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his informed question.

As we heard earlier today in the House, the issues regarding whether or not the rights provided under Bill C-525 would continue or not is dependent on separate legislation. It is not the legislation we are talking about here.

What we are talking about here is whether or not the RCMP gets these narrow rights for collective bargaining that are required by the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which needs to be implemented before May 16 in order to prevent the application of the current Public Service Labour Relations Act from applying to RCMP members.

In order to avoid that unfortunate result, we are putting forward legislation that addresses that fine point of the collective bargaining rights mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The issue as to whether or not the members of the RCMP choose of their own accord to adopt a process within their collective bargaining rights that requires a secret ballot would be up to them, and indeed if the bill currently before the House regarding the repeal of Bill C-525 does not achieve royal assent before this one, my understanding is that the current regime as it exists now would apply to the certification, or not, of any collective bargaining agent being proposed under this new regulatory regime.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

I thank the House for this opportunity to explain why Bill C-7 is a constructive and responsible development in federal labour relations.

If passed, this legislation would allow RCMP members and reservists to choose whether they wish to be represented by a bargaining agent independent of RCMP management. The key features of the bill include the requirement that the RCMP bargaining agent have as his primary mandate the representation of RCMP members; the exclusion of officers, those of inspector rank and above, from representation; and the designation of the renamed federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board as the administrative tribunal for matters relating to the RCMP bargaining unit as well as grievances related to the collective agreement, should one be affected.

The bill would provide for binding arbitration as the means to resolve impasses, in light of the essential nature of the work performed by the RCMP.

As a standard in federal labour relations, the bill would require that, to be certified as a bargaining agent, an employee organization would need the support of a majority of RCMP members in a single national bargaining unit.

The labour relations regime that this bill would create marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the RCMP. For the first time, RCMP members and reservists would have the same constitutional rights as other Canadians concerning collective bargaining. It is time the RCMP had the opportunity to decide whether to exercise these rights itself.

Our national mounted police have a storied past in Canada in the settlement and development of our country and in keeping peace across the land for almost a century and a half. Since its beginning in 1873, when the act establishing the North-West Mounted Police was introduced in the House by then prime minister John A. Macdonald, the RCMP has been an integral part of our history, indeed our culture. From the 1874 march west from Fort Dufferin in Manitoba, to policing the Klondike gold rush, to the St. Roch's passage through the Northwest Passage, to the vital roles in World War I and World War II, the RCMP has played instrumental roles in Canadian history.

Yet despite their long history, this legislation would be the first time these employees would have the right to freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining. This is a right guaranteed to all Canadians by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a right the RCMP defends and should also enjoy.

Members of the RCMP work with the goal of serving Canada and protecting Canadians. They are the people who protect the Governor General, the prime minister and other ministers of the crown, visiting royalty and dignitaries, and diplomatic missions. They are our neighbours, who participate in international policing efforts, safeguard the integrity of our borders, and provide counterterrorism and domestic security. They are the Canadians who enforce our federal laws against commercial crime, counterfeiting, drug trafficking, and organized crime.

This legislation would help support those who support us.

The bill also acknowledges the importance of collective bargaining in the development of Canadian society. Since it was officially recognized in 1944, collective bargaining has helped lift many Canadians out of economic insecurity and poverty. Working Canadians in both English and French Canada have a long tradition of organizing themselves to negotiate for better working conditions and more secure lives for themselves and their families. Their struggles and triumphs have been essential to Canada's development.

Our government recognizes that collective bargaining and Canadians' fundamental freedoms are vital to a healthy democracy in which people can pursue their livelihoods with a sense of fairness, security, and professionalism.

We promised to restore fair and balanced laws that acknowledge the importance of unions in Canada. That is what we have done, and that is what this legislation would continue to do.

In December, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. These two bills amended the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed before June 16, 2015.

The government has also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-59, which would have provided the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process. The bill we are considering today, which recognizes the right to collective bargaining for RCMP members and reservists, is another example of our commitment to fair and balanced labour relations.

Fair labour relations need to be available to the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for us. This legislation would do that, and it demonstrates our respect for fundamental liberties and the values at the heart of our democracy.

In 1873, parliamentarians like us voted in this House to establish the North-West Mounted Police. Today, we are here at the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the RCMP. We are considering whether, 143 years later, the men and women in our national police force should have the same fundamental freedoms as so many other Canadians enjoy.

I urge all members to support the bill that would give them those freedoms, and to vote with us to help those who help others.

[Heritage Day in Newfoundland and Labrador, March 10th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador was honoured this past Heritage Day when the minister responsible for Parks Canada announced a number of historical honours bestowed on sites and people from our province.

On this, the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel, I draw the attention of the House to Thomas Nangle. “Padre”, as he was affectionately known, was Roman Catholic chaplain to the beloved Royal Newfoundland Regiment. He enlisted following the tragic losses of Beaumont-Hamel and succeeded in having Newfoundland's efforts in World War I commemorated both in Europe, with the Trail of Caribou, and in St. John's, with the National War Memorial.

On behalf of St. John's East, I thank Parks Canada for its work and encourage everyone to learn more about the sites, events, and people of national historical significance at the Parks Canada website, including our dear padre, Thomas Nangle.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has obviously put a lot of thought into what is really a critically important mission not only for Canada but for the world.

Earlier in his comments he made mention of a number of factors that were relied upon, investigated, and referred to in the notes to United Nations Security Council resolution 2249 from last year that came out around November 20. In relation to that, I will read a small amount of the fifth part of the resolution, which states:

Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh...to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts...

In light of this, the position the government is putting forward in refocusing our efforts really goes to the heart of what the United Nations Security Council has recommended that nations involved in the coalition fighting Daesh do.

Even if the member will not support the motion at this time for the reasons that he gave, would he at least agree with the government that the plan put forward to focus efforts on intelligence gathering, humanitarian aid, and capacity-building for the forces on the ground is far superior to that of the Conservatives, which focused on the CF-18s and lacked those other aspects that were so critical and were requested by the United Nations Security Council in November?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the member's statement. Canada's contribution is still great in this. We are changing the tactic and the focus. However, it is still focused on the ultimate goal of defeating ISIL and bringing stability to this region, which is immensely important.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in respect of the first question, which was similar to the question previously posed, when bombing strikes go awry and there are civilian casualties associated with it, there is legitimate public outcry against that. As part of this coalition, we want to ensure we have the best intelligence resources available to us as a team so it can participate in the degradation and defeat of ISIL in an appropriate way, minimizing civilian casualties. That is exactly why Canada is focusing on intelligence gathering and on the ground capacity-building support for the local armed forces. It addresses the point precisely.

In respect of the second question posed on why we are removing the jets, our view is that it was a campaign commitment made throughout the entire election. We have never wavered upon the view that the best way for Canada to participate in the campaign in Iraq and Syria, both now and in the long term, is to focus on capacity building, intelligence gathering and targeting, and medical support on the ground. This is what we promised we would do, and it is what we shall do.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions about how improved collaboration between partners in the coalition will better serve Canada's purpose, and indeed help us defeat ISIL more quickly.

This is one of the reasons why, during the campaign and on the doorsteps of St. John's East, I would talk to people and ask if this was the best way for Canada to participate in the fight. They were concerned that perhaps we were not acting on the best information, that the fight against ISIL in Iraq and Syria was too complicated, and that we did not have the right intelligence resources to be engaged in it . As well, there were many articles in the news about improper bombing within the campaign.

Improved collaboration allows other members of the coalition forces to take up more of the activity with the jets and the bombardment, and it allows Canada to focus on its areas of strength, including intelligence gathering and targeting.