Scott Brison

[Government Advertising, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa South for his leadership on this issue.

Today, we are delivering on our commitment to end the partisan use of government advertising. We are introducing third-party oversight of government ads, with a new definition of non-partisan communications: no more ads for government programs not yet approved by Parliament or within 90 days of a set election date.

We will work with Parliament, the Auditor General, and stakeholders to entrench third-party oversight legislation and ensure that partisan government advertising is a thing of the past.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier of a toxic workplace. There are potential health and safety risks, near toxic levels of hypocrisy, coming from the Conservatives in attacking us, when we have to respond to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, with a deadline looming of May 16.

The reason we are in this position is because the Conservatives dragged their feet as a government and did not act expediently. As such, it put us in a difficult position where we were forced to seek an extension from the Supreme Court for four months, and within which we have acted.

The Conservatives used time allocation on a consistent basis. The leader of the Green Party cited that earlier. The Conservatives used it indiscriminately. It did not take the Supreme Court deadline for the Conservatives to do this.

We take seriously our responsibility to ensure that we respond to the Supreme Court decision and that we provide certainty in terms of the labour relations under which our national police force is governed.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I remember a justice minister in the previous government publicly quarrelling with a chief judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The party opposite, and particularly its genesis in the Reform Party, the Conservatives, when they were in office, made no bones of the fact that they were not big fans of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the 30th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms occurred under the Conservative government, and it did virtually nothing to celebrate. The Conservatives were busy finding the Franklin expedition, or the War of 1812. In fairness, that government did recognize certain things.

However, the fact is that we as Canadians, and this is not a partisan issue, ought to be justifiably proud of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the court system under which we are governed. The previous government did not understand or appreciate that. There was a values disconnect between the previous government and Canadians on the charter issue and the understanding of the importance of the courts.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the issue of harassment. Our government, our Prime Minister, and our Minister of Public Safety have been absolutely clear on this. There is zero tolerance for harassment in the public service. There is zero tolerance for harassment in the RCMP and the military. Our message and our actions have been clear on that front.

Beyond that, the RCMP is currently dealing with some of these issues now, and that is absolutely important.

This is about a basic right for people to work in a workplace that is not a toxic workplace where they are subject to harassment. That is a basic right. We, as a government, understand the importance of that.

I can assure the hon. member that our Prime Minister, our Minister of Public Safety, our entire government, are committed to ensuring that the RCMP is a place where sexual harassment is not tolerated in any way, shape, or form. I assure the hon. member, we are absolutely committed to that.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is entitled to her opinion. I always listen to her interventions with great interest, and sometimes she is right.

I disagree with her on this. I actually do think that uncertainty and the absence of a clear legislative response to the Supreme Court after May 16 is not a good situation in terms of our national police force. We do have a responsibility to act, to provide certainty in terms of the labour regime under which our national police force will be governed.

We take that seriously. Of course, we recognize the collective bargaining rights of RCMP, and we support and understand the Supreme Court's decision. I would think the hon. member would understand that as well. The legislation that we have now, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, does not in its current form really fit or suit the RCMP. Effectively, there will be conflicts between the RCMP regime and our existing Public Service Labour Relations Act. We do not think that is in the interests of the RCMP and the interests of public safety. We have had to act. In the process, we have actually accepted legislative changes made at committee.

We have and will continue to do our utmost to engage Parliament and engage committees meaningfully, as we craft legislation and move it forward in this House.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the consultation was extensive. The hon. member was not a member of the previous Conservative government, but the consultation actually took place under the previous government. It was an extensive survey of RCMP members.

The bill does seek to reflect that, and it is important. The areas where there were concerns raised was around the GECA provision. We accepted legislative changes from committee.

The reality is, we have a responsibility to act, with a May 16 deadline. We do not feel comfortable with the uncertainty and ambiguity that will exist until we have a new law in place that respects the Supreme Court decision. It is not in our national interests, nor in the interests of public safety, to have our national police force, the RCMP, under this kind of uncertainty.

All members of Parliament in this House have a collective responsibility to act on something this important with a Supreme Court decision looming, and we did that.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

First, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Public Safety and I met with the committee, we made it clear that we would take the work and the input of the committee seriously. We respect Parliament, and we respect the important work done by committees.

The removal of these provisions does not compromise the legislation in terms of complying with the Supreme Court decision. In the fullness of time, we can have a discussion around this, and perhaps we will do that. There were some concerns expressed in terms of the GECA provisions. We heard those concerns and accepted the removal of those provisions from the act. We think that demonstrates a lot of good faith in terms of respect for Parliament and respect for committees.

There is a lot of good work done at committees, and frankly the functioning of committees can be far less partisan than what goes on in the House, particularly in question period. I can say this as someone who has spent a lot of time working on committees over the years. We have a lot of new members of Parliament. The work that members of Parliament do on committees is valuable and important. This government understands that and intends to harness the creativity and wisdom and hard work of all members of Parliament, from all parties, on committees as we move forward.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's question.

Once again, it is very important to recognize that we inherited a very urgent situation. In a ruling, the Supreme Court recognized the right of RCMP members to collective bargaining. It recognized this and gave us an extension until May 16 of this year. It is very important that we take action, and that is exactly what we have done. We have shown great respect for Parliament and the committee's work. We have accepted the contributions and the amendments to our bill made by the committee.

Our colleague from the Conservative Party has actually taken credit for the change, so I would suggest that the New Democrats and Conservatives get this straightened out. The New Democrats are saying that we have not accepted anything from opposition. We have the Conservatives taking credit for it. If there is squabbling amongst themselves, it makes our situation very difficult in trying to adjudicate who is telling the truth on this.

I can say that regardless of the source, if something did not compromise our response to comply with the Supreme Court, we were open, as we were in terms of taking out the GECA changes. We can deal with those potentially in the future and have a more fulsome debate on that. However, we have a strict timeline to respect. We take that seriously. We inherited this situation from the previous government. We have needed to act, and we have acted.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thought, coming from the hon. member, he would be quoting Ayn Rand.

In any case, the previous government, as part of its war on organized labour, brought in Bill C-525, which further toxified and rendered sulphuric relations with organized labour, and not just within the public service but with organized labour across Canada.

We committed in opposition, in our platform, and as a government and we followed through in terms of bringing forward legislation to repeal the provisions of Bill C-525. We believe that was the right approach.

As a government, we followed through on our commitments to reverse what the Conservatives did in terms of Bill C-525. As such, we would not impose on the RCMP an approach in terms of labour relations that is distinct from what every other union in Canada operates under.

We disagree fundamentally with the way the Conservatives approached this issue, in terms of Bill C-525. It is also important to realize that Bill C-7 actually gives a choice between a card check or a secret ballot.

However, we are not going to impose that on Canada's unions, on Canada's labour movement, which was an error that the previous government made. Again, it further toxified relations with organized labour. We disagreed with it then, and we followed through on our commitment to change that. To impose on the RCMP a regime that is different from what every other union in Canada operates under would make no sense.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this bill does give the RCMP the rights to collective bargaining. It does reflect a consultation process that was conducted under the previous government.

RCMP across Canada participated in a consultation process. This bill not only complies with the Supreme Court decision but seeks to reflect broadly the views of the rank and file RCMP members for whom we have tremendous respect.

As a government, we respect the decision of the Supreme Court. We have moved this legislation to meet the demands of the Supreme Court, to ensure that the RCMP are given collective bargaining rights. That is what this bill actually achieves.

When there was a legislative change proposed by the committee, we accepted that. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and I made it very clear when we met with the committee that we would work with the committee and accept reasonable legislative changes, as long as we could still move forward and comply with the Supreme Court decision.