Scott Brison

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

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.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

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.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

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.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

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.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, in fact, our government's treatment of this legislation and the engagement with both the House and the other place reflects our respect for Parliament. We accepted proposed amendments from the House to remove some sections pertaining to the Government Employees Compensation Act, the workers' compensation provisions, and we have accepted a number of provisions from the other place: removing the RCMP-specifc provisions on what may be included in collective bargaining and replacing those restrictions with a management rights clause; and removing restrictions on the items that are generally not bargained in a federal context, such as pensions or items that would require amendment of the legislation. We rejected that amendment because, for instance, on the pension issue, we do not typically include pensions in these collective bargaining areas.

The point is that we accepted amendments from both the House and the other place as part of this. We want to get this right. We have great respect for the work of the RCMP, and we have great respect for the decision of the Supreme Court. This legislation would provide, for the first time, members of the RCMP with collective bargaining rights. It reflects the consultations that occurred under the previous government, when the RCMP wanted collective bargaining rights. There was a desire for one national union to represent them and for the union to be focused on representing RCMP members and the right to binding arbitration. This legislation was strengthened by the engagement of both this House and the Senate and reflects the Supreme Court decision and the wishes, broadly, of the RCMP.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, we inherited a serious situation. The Conservative government refused to take measures to deal with this issue despite the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling.

When we were elected and formed the government, we had to take steps in November 2015 to ensure that the RCMP's plan was consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.

The work of the RCMP is respected across Canada and we respect the Supreme Court's ruling of January 2015. Our government has the responsibility to respond to it, especially since the previous government failed to do so.

[Ethics, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years, the Harper government added $150 billion to the national debt, and what we ended up with were maybe a fake lake and maybe a few gazebos, but we did not get the kind of investments in communities that we are making today. We are investing unprecedented amounts in infrastructure, we are building stronger communities, we are building a stronger middle class, and we will continue to do that. That is why we have had, in the last six months, the best job creation in 10 years in Canada.

[Ethics, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to human rights, when it comes to progressive leadership on climate change, when it comes to the kind of leadership that the world needs today, our Prime Minister and our government are providing that leadership.

After 10 years of Canada creating a vacuum in terms of progressive values in the world, our government is stepping up and doing the right thing.

[Ethics, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister and our government have made it very clear to the world that Canada is back.

When it comes to leadership on progressive values, on climate change, on human rights, for 10 years—

[Taxation, April 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, low- and middle-income Canadians were stuck with the bill for the increased costs of government services. For example, drug assessment fees take in $45 million less every year than what it costs the government to assess the drugs. That means that there is a $45 million subsidy every year that Canadian taxpayers fork out for the big drug companies.

We believe that big businesses using government services ought to pay their fair share of the costs of those services, and enabling fees to be aligned with inflation will ensure that is the case.