Todd Doherty

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

Madam Speaker, it is not that we do not support the unionization of RCMP members. The fact is, Bill C-7 is such a stripped down piece of legislation that it would not allow our RCMP members, our everyday rank and file, to negotiate simple things, such as staffing, scheduling, or workplace harassment.

One other item is that we trust the 28,461 members to make life-and-death decisions every day. However, the Liberals will not trust that these members are able to vote or have a say on whether they want to unionize. It is not that we are against it, but we are against the non-secret ballot. Allow these members to have a say on whether they want to unionize.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to stand before this House and once again speak to Bill C-7, as it deals with our brave men and women of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

As I stand today, I was looking over my previous speech. I think it is incumbent that we do that once again. We should always remember the sacrifices, not only of our veterans but of those who put their uniforms on and run toward danger every day when others would run away.

RCMP members are moms, dads, sisters, and brothers. They are volunteers within our communities. They coach minor sports. They work with charities. They contribute to the health and wellness of our communities, not just when they have their uniforms on but every day.

We spoke previously of the legend of the Mountie from 1873, the North West Mounted Police, the 150 first recruits, who had the core values of integrity, honesty, professionalism, respect, and accountability. We talked about the legend of the Mountie always getting his man, Dudley Do-Right and Captain Canuck. We also talked about our national symbols of the red serge and the campaign hat, travelling internationally with Mounties in the promotion of Canada, and how proud we are of our RCMP force. These brave men and women are indeed our silent sentinels, so that we can rest comfortably every night. They face human tragedy and danger every day.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-7 and how it impacts the 28,461 members.

As we talk about the history of our RCMP, we should talk about what our RCMP members face today. Today, the RCMP is among the lowest-paid police force in Canada. It has slipped from the number one ranked police force in the world to well below that.

Mr. Speaker, I should also mention that because I was very excited and very passionate about getting into this speech, I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil. I apologize for not mentioning that sooner.

The RCMP are paid 30% lower than their municipal colleagues. Morale is indeed at a low point. We are seeing the numbers every day. Regular force members are faced with increasing workloads and capacity. Time and again, our RCMP members' rights and freedoms are secondary to that, and to those who are committing the crimes.

Since 1974, RCMP members have worked under a non-unionized labour relations regime. They had a secondary group staff relations representative program, SRRP. This was the group that represented the members' rights to management. That was the only group that was able to collectively represent the interests of the employees and our regular force members to management. Despite the consultative role of the SRRP, management has always had the final say in all human resource matters.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled, in Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada, that the existing labour relations program, the one currently in place, violated the rights and freedoms of RCMP members.

Under subsection 2(d), “freedom of association”, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court found that indeed the rights and freedoms of RCMP members had been violated. Bill C-7 was introduced by this Liberal government in response to this decision last January. It was ruled that the Mounties should have the right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining. It should be noted that the RCMP are the only police force in Canada without that right.

The Liberals took this legislation a little too far. Bill C-7 contains a list of issues that are excluded from the bargaining table, as well as a controversial proposal to ship Mounties hurt on the job to the provinces they are working in. Among the items that were left out of collective bargaining were staffing levels, workplace harassment, sexual harassment, conduct, discipline, uniforms, and scheduling. These are clauses and issues that not just RCMP workers, but any workers should have. They should have the right for a safe environment, a safe workplace. They should have the right to a say in those areas.

The Conservatives and the opposition were able to strike down, through the Liberal majority on the committee, clauses 40 and 42. These are clauses that would have effectively moved RCMP members' health benefits to provincial entities. Indeed, workers' compensation claims would have been dealt with provincially. This would mean that Mounties would have a different standard of benefits, whether health or workers' compensation benefits, depending on the province they work in. Conservatives, through the committee, were able to strike that down. While this is a positive development, sadly, it took the spouses of existing and retired RCMP members to convince the Liberal government to finally see reason.

It was my sincere hope that through debate, the Liberals would listen to the other concerns, not just from the Conservative side but the NDP, and indeed other members in government, who also shared some of their concerns before the bill went to committee. We had hope on this side that by allowing that bill go to committee, there would be further amendments. Sadly, that was not the case.

Bill C-7 fails to support the brave men and women of the RCMP. It will take away their democratic right to a secret ballot and to negotiate other core issues that impact their work environment, their personal lives, and the lives of their families.

Let us talk about the democratic right to a secret ballot. The Conservatives will always stand behind the RCMP. We will always support legislation that allows for the democratic right for a secret ballot vote. However, we will not support legislation that so blatantly violates the wishes of its members.

I have been stopped a number of times on the street and in shopping centres. I have received emails and letters from RCMP members, wishing to be anonymous because they have been told not to speak about this issue. They have voiced their concerns about Bill C-7. Instead of forcing RCMP members to disclose their votes publicly, the Liberals should listen to the everyday rank and file, the RCMP members who are concerned that their vote will impact their workplace situations.

I think I speak for all members in the House when I say that we proudly support and defend the men and women who wear the RCMP uniform. We thank them for their service every day. However, we, as the official opposition, respect the Supreme Court's decision that RCMP officers are entitled to bargain collectively. Some Conservatives even voted in favour of Bill C-7 to get it to the committee, but we were only able to strike down clauses 40 and 42. The Liberal government, in its open and transparent ways, was unwilling to require secret ballot certification, an essential requirement in the democratic process.

We cannot support any legislation that would deny employees that fundamental right to vote in a secret ballot on whether to unionize. We do not use a show of hands or public petition in our democratic elections, nor should we in our workplace.

In closing—

[Softwood Lumber, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, let us see if we can get her to say “seized” one more time.

We are two-thirds of the way through the 100 days and no closer to bringing home a new softwood lumber agreement, regardless of what the Minister of International Trade says.

The Liberals have pitted Canada's small forestry producers against the large producers. They have left them out in the cold. These are the very same large Canadian forestry companies that are growing their U.S. operations, while moving Canadian jobs out of our country.

The Liberals are playing both sides of the border. When will the Liberals start protecting Canadian jobs and bring home a new softwood lumber agreement?

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that our hon. colleague across the way has used words “on the fly” and “we have had three full days” of discussions. The House has debated the issue of pipelines longer than we are debating one of the most fundamental and important pieces of legislation of this Parliament, or those before us, and of those moving forward. We are dealing with life and death.

I am sure my hon. colleague did not mean to say that good enough was good enough. When we are dealing with life and death, the government has done everything in its power to stall the debate, earlier this week and throughout the whole process. It is unacceptable.

Is good enough good enough when we are dealing with life and death?

[Income Tax Act, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague across the way. I too came here and I have offered respect throughout the six months we have been here, time and time again. There are times for jabs back and forth and it is for the most part friendly, but yesterday's incident was unacceptable.

The respect has to go two ways. The actions we have seen, and I am not talking about the motion but I want to talk about the comments at the tail end of my hon. colleague's speech, those actions do speak louder than words.

Would he not agree that perhaps the opposition has not seen the level of respect that we would expect from a government, from a leader in the past week, with Motion No. 6 originally being tabled and perhaps closure being levelled in terms of debate? Again, actions speak louder than words and respect is ensuring that there is debate, not putting a draconian motion in place.

We have moved beyond the incident yesterday as we have mentioned earlier, but again, that respect has to go both ways. Will the hon. member agree and commit to being a leader on his side so that whether it is committee work or if he is witnessing anything on his side that he will take a stand and make sure the opposition has a say, has a word, and that we are not irrelevant, as was shouted across the floor numerous times over the last week, and indeed, that we do have a voice?

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the apology a number of times. I am sure that the Prime Minister is indeed apologetic for getting caught doing what he did, but an apology should not come from a script. That is what we have seen.

I would like to ask our hon. colleague if she feels that perhaps an apology that is heartfelt should not come from a script, that there are other things our Prime Minister could do to prove that actions speak louder than words.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I am a new parliamentarian. My hon. colleague spoke of how hard we worked to get to this place and that we were all here to try to make a difference in our communities and, indeed, the country. What we witnessed yesterday was troubling, but we have seen more and more of these types of actions over the last six months.

What would happen if those actions took place just outside of the doors, if there were unwanted grabbing, pressure, and pulling? The member mentioned that it was assault, but what would have taken place outside of the doors?

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have said this right from day one. Again, I am a coach and I am a small business owner, but leadership comes from the top. Actions speak louder than words, and we have seen the actions over the last six months.

I will reiterate that outside of this House the Prime Minister has been very generous to me when I have had constituents who would like to meet the Prime Minister, but in this House, I have seen complete disregard and childish actions.

Our tone is set by our leader, and whether or not he is our leader on this side, he is the leader of our country, and actions such as that are unacceptable, here or in any workplace.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with Motion No. 6 we again see a government and a leader who are saying, “I will show you. How dare you question my authority”.

Whether it is closure on the debate on perhaps the piece of legislation that will have the most impact that our generation will ever see—we are debating pipelines longer than we are debating assisted suicide—it is unacceptable.

Motion No. 6 fundamentally would put closure on any debate, on anything. This has never been seen before in the history of our Parliament. It just shows the length the Liberals will go to make sure that Canadian voices are not heard.

[Privilege, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for the honour to rise today and speak to the incident that happened yesterday.

For years I worked toward my dream of becoming a member of Parliament because I knew it was an opportunity for me to at least try to change people's lives and have an impact on our country. I hold the House in high regard. I hold all members of the House in high regard.

Indeed, in my very first speech in the House, I offered that I was looking forward to working collaboratively with members from all sides of the House. I offered my hand even at that time that while I may hold their feet to the fire during debate in times of seriousness and when we need to, that I also would offer my hand across the way when they needed help in terms of personal struggles. Indeed, yesterday it was great to see our colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt in the House. I know that he is fighting his own battles. It was great to see him here this week.

I have been sitting in the House for only a few short months and I will be very honest in terms of the respect and disrespect that we have seen across the way by the Prime Minister over the last six months. I will also be honest that he has afforded me time outside of the House when I have constituents who want to meet with him. He has been very respectful and he has offered us a considerable amount of his time. I know his schedule is hectic. But frankly, I was embarrassed and ashamed to have been witness to the conduct of our Prime Minister yesterday. His behaviour was appalling, unacceptable, and shocking. For anyone to angrily stride across the floor like that, elbowing another colleague, is deplorable. That is what we are talking about today.

On this side we have witnessed his actions over the last six months. When our colleague from Alberta was talking about a constituent who was losing her family's house because they were out of work and she was near tears while she was relaying this question, I witnessed the Prime Minister smiling and laughing. We have witnessed the Prime Minister sticking his tongue out at members of the opposition. We have witnessed him saying snide remarks about members of the opposition.

There are times for jabs. There are times for partisan jabs back and forth and we have all been part and parcel of that. But our Prime Minister should be held to a higher account. The conduct is unbecoming of someone holding that office.

Yesterday, when our Prime Minister angrily charged across the floor, he shouted swear words. He was using language unbecoming of the House. I heard it, but I also saw members from both sides engage in some heated discussion. I saw members come across the floor and I, too, tried to break it up and make sure that none of us did something that we would regret later on.

However, we are talking about the Prime Minister today and the actions that are unbecoming of a prime minister.

I am a small business owner and if I had seen any of my employees do the exact same thing, they would have been fired on the spot. We talk about workplace violence. We talk about domestic violence. We see our Prime Minister who is angered and definitely striding across the floor to show us who is boss, to assert his authority. It is unacceptable.

Parliament should be the pinnacle of democracy. We as members of Parliament should be held to a higher standard and we are. Leadership starts from the top. That seat sets the tone for all, not just on his side, but also on our side. That seat sets the tone for all parliamentarians.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister showed a complete and utter disregard for the institution and for all Canadians with his actions and behaviour. Throughout the day we heard shouts from the other side that the opposition was irrelevant. Then there is Motion No. 6, which is unacceptable. Again, it is just part and parcel of the actions of the Prime Minister who has authority now and he is going to show us who is boss. He is going to show Canada who is boss.

Right now, outside these doors, there are school tours going on, and there were school tours here yesterday. How was yesterday's incident an example for these schoolkids, these kids who are coming here to watch what we do? Does he say it is okay to conduct himself in that manner? Then he stands to make more excuses for it.

The offender never intends to hurt somebody, a drunk driver never intends to kill people, but the fact of the matter is the offence happened. How can we leave the next generation in a better position to succeed in the future if the Prime Minister himself, who has the ability to inspire so much change and indeed campaigned on real change cannot even respect his own colleagues?

It is not for us to determine the intent of the Prime Minister's actions. Only he truly knows what the intent of his actions was. However, offering excuses for the offender, which is what we saw afterwards, minimizing the impact on our colleague from the NDP, minimizing it, and then when our colleague from the NDP composed herself and managed to come into the House and talk about the impact, we saw eyes rolling and laughs from the other side, minimizing it.

That is a problem not just in this House but outside in society: turning a blind eye and making excuses for what happened. We all should be doing what we can to stop this kind of behaviour, and not make excuses for the offender about why it happened, that he is such a nice guy and did not mean to do it.

The excuses we heard earlier are typical. If this were a domestic abuse case and the abuser, the offender stood up and said, “I did not mean to do it; I did not know what I was doing; I did not mean to hurt the person”, it would be unacceptable.

I just do not understand it. I was shocked and appalled. This is not a playground, nor is it a baseball game or a hockey game. I think I speak for all members when I say that this is not the legacy that we want to leave. This is not the legacy that any of us came here to leave.

Even more disappointing was that when the discussion and debate started, the Prime Minister chose to leave and not hear how his actions impacted us, as if that discussion was not worthy of his time. It is unacceptable. I mentioned it earlier in this debate. If he truly meant what he said and was apologizing, he would be here listening right from the start about how that impacted us.

It is a privilege to sit as Prime Minister. Canadians elected a Prime Minister to what is arguably the most powerful position in this country. He ran an entire campaign on change. This is not change. In fact, it is the opposite. People praise democracy around the world because it allows people to have a voice, and they expect their members of Parliament to carry their voices forward on their behalf, not carry the voice of Ottawa to their ridings, but carry the voices of their ridings here.

A majority government, or any number of seats of this House, does not give the right to stifle debate. It does not give anyone the authority to manhandle other parliamentarians. It does not give anyone the right to stifle members because one's ego is bruised. It certainly does not give anyone the right to be aggressive and attack another member of Parliament, either verbally or physically.

This House belongs to the people, not us, not me, and most certainly not the Prime Minister. Motion No. 6, closure, asserting his authority, all that we have seen over the last six months, sticking his tongue out, childish behaviour, perhaps a Prime Minister, a member of Parliament who just was not ready.

I ask one final thing, and I am speaking as a father and a husband, and I know the Prime Minister is a husband and a father as well. If this happened to any of his kids or his wife, how would he react?