Bill C-4 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to restore the procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed before June 16, 2015.
It also amends the Income Tax Act to remove from that Act the requirement that labour organizations and labour trusts provide annually to the Minister of National Revenue certain information returns containing specific information that would be made available to the public.

Pension Protection Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the point I was trying to make on this is that Canadians from coast to coast to coast invest the most valuable resource we all have, which is time and commitment. When it comes to the work environment, that sacrifice is often made because of the benefits or contributions that are being made toward things like a pension.

I do not think there is anyone in the House who would try to devalue or take away from the importance of pensions. We have, virtually since forming government back in 2015, in many ways taken a look at how we can support Canadians with respect to pensions. It is one of the reasons one of the first actions we took was to reduce the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 for people to collect the OAS. It is one of the reasons we had discussions with all the different stakeholders, specifically our provinces, to deal with the issue of CPP contributions. Unlike the Conservative Party, we see CPP contributions as a pension, for deferring income to once a person retires.

Much like the defined pension plans we are talking about within this legislation, there is an expectation, and that expectation will be met through CPP contributions. When people in the private sector are contributing toward a pension, there is an obligation for the private sector to contribute to that pension, so that after a person has worked a number of years or however long it might be, they will be entitled to receive those benefits. It is a contract, an agreement of faith in which there is a responsibility for private sector pension plans, defined or not, to be able to maintain that commitment. The unfortunate reality of economics and, I would suggest, poor management by different private sector companies, have led to that contract being violated.

The leader of the Conservative Party made reference to Nortel. Nortel is a good way to amplify the issue, and I think that is why there is a great deal of sympathy toward it. We all agree that we should be doing what we can to increase the protection of these pensions. In Nortel's situation, so much money was lost because the corporation did not do its part in terms of maintaining its contributions to a fund when ultimately the company disappeared. The people who were hurt were the workers.

I like to think that over the years, as a parliamentarian, I have been a very strong advocate for workers. Virtually from day one, back in 1988, when I debated late into the evenings on the issue of final offer selection, from that point to walking picket lines to understanding the importance of advocating for workers and always doing what is in their best interest, that is something I have strived for as a parliamentarian. That is why, when we formed government, I was very pleased with some of the first pieces of legislation we brought forward. They were to protect the workers, albeit through the unions. Bill C-4, for example, repealed two pieces of private members' legislation, and it was good that it did.

We can talk about other commitments that have been made even within this debate with regard to the fall economic statement, where we have the labour mobility tax deduction. We have had a great deal of discussion lately with respect to the whole idea of banning replacement workers in strike or lockout situations, and there is a great expectation from me and others that we will be able to move forward on that file.

We have brought in legislation that has passed on pay equity. As the member will know, when we bring in legislation, especially labour legislation, it is critical that an appropriate amount of consultation has been done. I was interested in listening to the leader of the official opposition when he focused his entire discussion on the pension issue. I respect that because that is what the legislation dealt with, virtually from first reading coming into this, so that, when we had the draw, members had the opportunity to look into it and start doing the things they needed to do to feel comfortable voting on the legislation.

Because the member was effective at working with some of her colleagues, she was even able to get it advanced. I applaud her on taking the initiative to make that happen. To me, it shows her genuine attitude in recognizing, first and foremost, that there is a serious and fundamental problem. There is no one inside the House who would not appreciate this, when we get private sector companies operating in bad faith and not financially supporting those pension funds to the degree they should be supported so that, in the case of a collapse, those funds are not there.

I really look forward to tomorrow when we are going to have the vote on the legislation. Based on the comments I hear, I am anticipating that, in all likelihood, the legislation will be passed. I have not personally made my decision on it, but I can say that I am exceptionally sensitive to the needs of pensions. We in Parliament, and politicians, have a fairly good pension and it is guaranteed. We sacrifice a great deal, but no more than what the factory worker puts on the floor. I want the benefits to which the factory worker is entitled to be realized, as I want the pension of the member herself to ultimately be realized.

The issue of pensions is something that, the older we get, the more we want to focus on. From discussions I have had, I think the government needs to move toward ensuring that our way of life is enhanced as much as possible as we grow older. That is why I support many of the measures that we have taken. I am very much intrigued by what is being proposed before us, and I look forward to the actual vote tomorrow.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to be rising in debate on third reading of Bill C-228. There have been many attempts in the past to try to secure pension protection for workers when their companies go bankrupt. I believe this is the furthest we have come so far, and that has been the result of some good cross-party collaboration, which is often what it takes to be able to accomplish things for workers in this place.

I want to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for her collaborative and conciliatory attitude in trying to move her bill forward.

I would also like to thank the member for Manicouagan for her work on this matter and for her co-operation during the negotiations.

I also want to recognize the work of one of my former colleagues, Scott Duvall, who did a lot of work on this subject over two Parliaments and essentially developed the private member's bill that I was honoured to present in this Parliament on the very same issue.

This bill is an interesting case study, if we look at the process it has been through, of how difficult it can be to achieve things for the working people of Canada.

There always seem to be roadblocks and hiccups, and we do not see those same kinds of roadblocks usually put up when the government is trying to do something for corporate Canada. Those things tend to run pretty smoothly. Sometimes New Democrats try to slow it down, but we have only so many seats in this place. That is up to Canadians. That is why we are always working hard to elect more New Democrats so that we have more of an ability to ensure that corporate Canada does not have the run of this place.

In order to get something done for workers, it usually takes some kind of coming together of many disparate things in the right order, at the right time and in the right place. That is pretty hard to do.

We saw that, just the other day, with the member for Winnipeg North. There was some agreement not only to protect the pensions of workers when their companies go bankrupt, but also to go above and beyond and to really do the right thing.

We saw this in the case of Sears workers as well. It was not just their pensions that they lost, but there was a lot of controversy over their severance and termination pay at that time, millions of dollars.

We now have a Parliament that was prepared to do that for working people. Instead, with some procedural fig leaves, we saw the member for Winnipeg North get up and exclude what I take to be a really important part of the bill as it came out, amended, from committee, without actually speaking to the substantive issue.

We just heard from another Liberal MP on this, who did not address the issue of termination and severance pay and why the government was so keen to remove that from the bill.

I think that they owe workers an explanation on the substance of the matter, not on the parliamentary procedure but on why it was that, when there was just about a parliamentary consensus, and if it were not for the Liberals there would have been a parliamentary consensus on the fact that it makes sense to protect the termination and severance pay of workers, why they blew that up, instead of seeing it for the opportunity that it was to do right by workers and to have a gold standard when it comes to protecting them in the case of bankruptcy.

As I said, it is hard to accomplish things for workers in this place. I know because I am part of a caucus that works relentlessly to try to do that.

The Liberals ran on a promise to do better when it came to bargaining collectively with our public servants. In fact, the Prime Minister wrote them all a very nice note when he first got elected, and said that things were going to change, that it was not going to be like it was under the Harper years, when those guys would go for years without a collective agreement.

I met just last week with representatives of a public sector union who represent the thousands of people in Elmwood—Transcona who work at the tax centre. What are they telling us? They have been a year without a contract. The government will not make a wage offer. They are having to go to some kind of mediation because they cannot get the government bargaining in good faith. We see that far too often.

Frankly, when Conservatives have been in government, we have seen that lack of good faith and difficulty in getting contracts for public servants too. That is part of why it is very difficult to get things done for workers in this place.

In the previous government, we saw Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Folks in the labour movement will remember those bills because they made it easy to decertify a union. They made it harder to certify a union, and they would have required unions to inappropriately disclose their financial position, which matters if one is thinking about a strike, for instance, in order to make the case for better wages and working conditions.

If the employer knows how much is in a strike fund, it is very easy for them to develop a strategy to exhaust the strike, so that was something that was not good, and the Liberals promised to get rid of it. They did, finally. It took a long time after they came to power for Bill C-4 in the 42nd Parliament to pass. I remember encouraging them to do it a lot more quickly. It did not take a lot of time for them to try to pass a deferred prosecution agreement arrangement when SNC-Lavalin came knocking and said that was something it wanted. That appeared quickly in a budget bill, and all of a sudden it was getting done, when it took a year for the legislation to repeal Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

We have also seen Liberals and Conservatives stand up in this place over the course of many Parliaments now to legislate workers back to work, because God forbid workers get too uppity. They had to shut that down and make sure they were back at work, doing what they were told and working for the wages the government put in legislation.

The Liberals talked for a long time about anti-scab legislation, but until it was put in a confidence and supply agreement it was very hard to have any confidence they would do it, and they still were not going to do it the right way until the NDP said very clearly that anti-scab legislation should not apply just when there is a lockout, but also when there is a strike. We know the Conservatives are not supportive of anti-scab legislation, and that is why it is hard to get things done around here for workers.

Even for 10 paid sick days during the pandemic, we had to argue again and again that it ought to be done. We are told that next month it should finally be in place. We have had to wait a good long time. Do members know who did not have to wait? It was big companies at the beginning of the pandemic, when big banks and others got access to liquidity very quickly, because the government was concerned about them. We have seen that when the government is concerned, it is able to act quickly, and we often see long delays when it comes to doing the right thing by workers.

I am sick of it, and that is why this has been a very hopeful process, working with the member for Sarnia—Lambton and the member for Manicouagan, because something has been coming together here that is a good thing for workers and that we have been working to institute for a long time.

Not only was it going to be just the next little step, but it was going to be the gold standard. We see again that in this institution there are so many ways to pick off victories for workers, sometimes when we least expect it and sometimes for reasons that appear to have nothing to do with the substance but actually have everything to do with the substance in the bill, because we saw the parliamentary secretary for industry come to the finance committee and sing some kind of big tale and sad song from the financial industry about how hard it was going to be on them and how nobody was ever going to have any access to credit or anything like this. That was right out of the mouth of industry through the mouth of the parliamentary secretary.

These are all arguments that have been considered in the past. Parliament has studied this issue many times before. There was no new information in that. The fact remains that when we have a bankruptcy in this country, it is workers who are left holding the bag. It is wrong, and it should change. When we look at the percentage of businesses that go bankrupt and then the percentage of those that actually have defined benefit pension plans, the fact of the matter is that we are talking about a very small percentage of any one financial institution's portfolio. They can surely bear that risk and carry that load.

Most businesses they invest in succeed. We know that, and that is why we can say with confidence that this is something we can do to protect the pensions of Canadian workers. I wish I were saying we could protect the severance and termination pay also, because we know the big banks and financial institutions are going to get along just fine. The people we should be concerned about in this place are the people who work for 20 or 30 years and do not get a second chance to have a retirement nest egg.

They depend on that, and they went to work on that understanding, and when something goes wrong that is far beyond their decision-making or control, they need to know that the future they worked for is in place for them, so I am very glad we will be doing that with their pension. I am angry we are not doing that for termination and severance pay because the Liberals decided to go for sneaky tricks instead of a straight-up vote on the issue in this Parliament, and I look forward to working with other members of this place to see if folks in the other place, the Senate, will have the good sense to do what we should have done here.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I want to start by congratulating my colleague from Kings—Hants on his French. He delivered half his speech in French earlier, and it was really impressive. I want to congratulate him and encourage all my colleagues to learn the second official language. By “second official language”, I do not mean that French is the second official language, but it is the second language of an English speaker. In my case, English is my country's second official language. I just wanted to make that clear.

We are here to talk about budget items and votes for various departments, including Justice Canada. As we all know, my colleague from Fundy Royal moved a motion about that department. As a result, we are talking about judicial processes, the administration of justice in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and decisions that affect everyone.

More specifically, I want to talk about a decision handed down a few weeks ago that had broad repercussions across the country, especially in the region where I am from, Quebec City. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down a law on consecutive sentencing that had been duly passed by this Parliament in 2011 and had been in force until the Supreme Court's ruling.

This decision is in connection with the Quebec City mosque tragedy that occurred on January 29, 2017. I will recap those sad events. Anyone who was directly or indirectly affected by this incident remembers exactly where they were when they heard the news. People were gathered at the mosque, united by their faith, their charity and the communion of spirit, when a crazed gunman, a nameless criminal, walked in and emptied his gun, killing six men at that mosque. Our thoughts are with the 19 injured worshippers who survived, and with the loved ones of the six people who lost their lives.

At the end of the trial, the Hon. François Huot, the trial judge, handed down a 40-year sentence, which might have surprised some people. As I was saying earlier, a law had been passed by Parliament allowing for cumulative sentences. A criminal who killed three people would be sentenced to three times 25 years.

I want to say that this is a Canadian law. All too often, I have heard people refer to it as a Conservative law. This law was passed by a Conservative government, but it was kept in place by the current government. To be more specific, the 2011 law was applied up until 2015 by the Conservative government, for more than three and a half years. However, this law remained in force from 2015 until the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, which is almost seven years. Therefore, this law was accepted and applied by the current Liberal government for almost twice as long as the previous Conservative government.

I wanted to clarify that because, as I was drafting this speech, I came across articles that described the law as a relic of the Harper era, as though that were a bad thing. God knows Canada sure had some good years when the Conservative government was running the country.

If the Liberals hated the law so much, all they had to do was set it aside and repeal it, just as they did in other cases. In fact, during this government's first months in power, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, our leader at the time, gave me the tremendous responsibility of being our party's labour critic. In that capacity, I spoke to Bill C‑4, which repealed two laws governing transparency and democracy in unions, laws that had been passed under the previous Conservative government. The duly elected Liberal government had made a campaign promise to repeal those two laws. Having won a majority, it introduced a bill and repealed them. However, the Liberal government chose to maintain the consecutive sentencing law that is still attributed to the Harper era.

Let us get back to the sequence of events. Justice François Huot pronounces a final guilty verdict and imposes a prison sentence of 40 years, in other words, 25 years plus 15 years. He rewrites Canada's cumulative sentencing law as he sees fit, noting that he was uncomfortable with the “25 years plus 25 years plus 25 years” approach. He says himself in his ruling that he adapted the law as he saw fit and imposed a sentence of 40 years. It was a fairly extensive document, 246 pages long. He also examined the case law in more than 195 countries.

The Court of Appeal was asked to review that ruling. It struck it down. The three judges found that this was a bad piece of legislation, that it was unconstitutional. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled against this law, saying that it was totally unfair, unconstitutional and ultimately—and I am paraphrasing here—had no place in the Canadian judicial process.

One can disagree with a law, even a law that has been upheld by the Liberal government. However, there is a reality when it comes to crime, when it comes to murder, or what we call mass murder. I dislike that expression, but there is no doubt what it means: a compulsive killer emptying a gun on innocent victims. We have seen it too many times in our country. Once is one time too many. Having been through the mosque attack—I knew some of the people—I say we must think of the victims. This is about more than just the court case, the robes and the Supreme Court. It is about more than the legal process and the courts. We are talking about men and women who are suffering.

I would like to read an article by Dominique Lelièvre that was published in the Journal de Québec on Friday, May 27, just a few hours after the Supreme Court decision. The author quotes survivors and victims' loved ones:

Orphans of the Sainte-Foy mosque may pass their father's killer on the streets of Quebec City 20 years from now, laments the Muslim community, which is disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision....

“In our opinion, this ruling does not consider the magnitude of the atrocity and the scourge of mass killings proliferating in North America, nor does it recognize the hateful, Islamophobic and racist nature of the crime,” said Mohamed Labidi, president of the organization [the CCIQ], at the mosque on Sainte-Foy Road where six worshippers were brutally gunned down in January 2017.

“Although we are disappointed in this decision by the highest court in the land, it does enable us to close this legal chapter. Now we want to focus on the future.”

What troubles the survivors and the victims' loved ones most is that the children of these victims might one day encounter the murderer.

“That is the biggest fear of the victims' families. The Parole Board might delay his release and take this into account, but that's our real fear, that the orphans who will become men and women will come face to face with their father's killer when he is free,” said Mr. Labidi. He vowed to stand by these children when the time comes....

When contacted by Le Journal, Aymen Derbali, a father who was left severely disabled after miraculously surviving being shot seven times during the attack, said that he “respects” the court's decision, although he was “very disappointed” in the ruling.

“What worries me as a citizen is that this encourages future criminals to commit mass murder, since the sentence would be the same,” he said.

All the same, this decision was the culmination of a long saga that will help him close this painful chapter of his life. He wants to dedicate all of his energy to his family, to his children's future and to his humanitarian aid projects.

“I'm turning the page. I started this process a little while ago, but with this decision... Finally, there was a decision. The law will be enforced the same way across Canada,” he said with a sigh.

...

Boufeldja Benabdallah, the co-founder of the CCIQ, suggested that the court did not sufficiently account for the pain experienced by the victims' loved ones, compared to the offender's right to rehabilitation.

“The Supreme Court made a purely legal observation that, in our opinion, did not take into account the humanity of these families. It took into account the humanity of a murderer who will have to be rehabilitated later on.... Today, it feels like the balance has been upset,” he said.

Now that all the legal appeals have been exhausted, he says that he wants to do something worthwhile by continuing to advocate for communal harmony, which he says has grown immensely in the past five years, like a healing balm on the scars of the tragedy.

People did not just come the day after the attack but reached out to us over the past five years, and we too made the effort to reach out to them.

Labour

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this matter falls under provincial jurisdiction, but let me share with members what we have done as a government in order to support unions and workers from the time we were elected.

In 2015, one of the first measures we implemented was Bill C-4, which repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, which were actually anti-union pieces of legislation. We have been there for workers. Members can look at the enhancements we have made under the Labour Code, such as increasing leaves and creating new leaves. We have been there, and we will continue to be there for workers every step of the way.

Proceedings on a Bill Entitled An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Operations at the Port of Montreal

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, a bill in the name of the Minister of Labour, entitled An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of operations at the Port of Montreal, be disposed of as follows:

(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order;

(b) when the House begins debate at the second reading stage of the bill, two members of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party may each speak at the said stage for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments, provided that members may be permitted to split their time with another member;

(c) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate at the second reading stage or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred;

(d) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage, it shall be deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed;

(e) during consideration of the bill, the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown;

(f) no motion to adjourn the debate may be moved except by a minister of the Crown; and

(g) upon completion of proceedings on the said bill, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am joining members from the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe people covered by the Dish With One Spoon wampum agreement.

I am here today to talk about our intention to take action to end the labour dispute between the Syndicat des débardeurs, also known as CUPE Local 375, and the Maritime Employers Association, or the MEA.

My maiden speech in the House of Commons discussed a proud history of the labour movement in Hamilton and Canada. I spoke to how our government was passing a bill, Bill C-4, that replaced the previous government's anti-labour bills: Bill C-535 and Bill C-377.

I have been a staunch supporter of the labour movement that has done so much for my hometown and for Canada. I grew up in a community that was driven by labour values. Those values are what drive me today: hard work, fairness, safety and healthy and inclusive workplaces.

I want to be clear that neither I nor the government wanted the situation to come to this point. This legislation was always our least-favoured option. Our government believes in the collective bargaining process. The parties have been at the bargaining table for two and a half years. For over two and a half years, we have supported the parties throughout the collective bargaining process in the hope of them arriving at a negotiated agreement.

The Port of Montreal is essential for the economic prosperity of Canadians across the country, especially Quebeckers and the people of eastern Canada. We believe that the government has no choice but to take action.

Let me be clear. The government will continue to support the parties and strongly encourages them to reach an agreement as soon as possible. Let me provide some context.

The Port of Montreal is the second-largest container port in Canada. Every year it handles over 1.6 million 20-foot equivalent units and 35 million tonnes of cargo, representing approximately $40 billion in goods. It is also a major link in the various Canadian and American supply chains for raw materials and consumer goods.

The work stoppage we are seeing right now is causing harm. It has the potential to cause severe, immediate and lasting damage to the economies of Montreal, the province of Quebec and Canada. This work stoppage affects more than 19,000 direct and indirect jobs associated with transit through the Port of Montreal, including in the rail and trucking industry. In fact, it would affect the jobs of up to 250,000 employees in Montreal and 273,000 workers in Ontario employed in the production of shipping container products. Shippers that have been forced to reroute to other ports may not return immediately. They may not even return in the long term, meaning that the negative impacts on Montreal, Quebec and all of Canada could last longer as the work stoppage continues.

The Port of Montreal is a major link in many Canadian and American supply chains of raw materials and consumer goods. These goods are fundamental to the manufacturing, agriculture and health industries, among many others. Vital PPE arrives via the Port of Montreal. Important goods to various manufacturing industries do as well.

The August 2020 strike had a disruptive and protracted effect on the east coast transportation system. More than 21 ships were diverted to other ports, including Halifax and Saint John, leading to congestion, longer transit times and additional costs for shippers. The current work stoppage is leading to similar rerouting to other ports, including in the U.S. This is having a strong negative economic impact.

Earlier this year, long before the strike action took place, we heard from stakeholders such as the Shipping Federation of Canada, which stated:

The mere threat of a work stoppage by longshore workers at the Port of Montreal is forcing North American importers and exporters to divert large volumes of international cargo away from the port and is already causing havoc to supply chains...

At that time, the Montreal Port Authority also confirmed that some of its clients had pre-emptively diverted container goods to other ports. Of course, it is important to point out that we are in the midst of the pandemic and COVID-19 has exacerbated this situation.

If these diversions to American ports become permanent, they could have long-lasting negative effects on the integrated transportation and logistics network around the Port of Montreal. A direct effect would be lower demand for rail and trucking services in Canada that support the movement of cargo between Canada and the United States. We also know that production and manufacturing in natural resource sectors, such as forestry, were seriously impacted during the strike last summer. These sectors are once again seeing major impacts to their supply chains with this latest action.

For example, the Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture has said that seed, fertilizer, crop protection and other important inputs arrive at the port destined for farms across the region that need them to successfully get their crops in the ground.

Small businesses that rely on the Port of Montreal for supplies will be especially hard pressed to absorb the extra costs associated with the work stoppage if it is left to continue for a long period. Many of these smaller businesses cannot afford high-cost alternatives, such as expediting cargo through busy ports along the east coast of the U.S. at the last minute. They often cannot afford to pay workers while their businesses remain idle as they wait for operations at the Port of Montreal to return to normal.

All of this comes at a precarious moment in Canada's economic recovery from the ongoing pandemic. Supply chains have been disrupted for over a year now. Industries are working very hard to recover from and manage these complexities. These industries employ workers who are not just numbers: They are people who depend on their jobs to take care of themselves and their families and all those who depend on them. For businesses in central and eastern Canada, this second major work stoppage at one of the main gateways to international suppliers and markets is a serious blow in the already challenging COVID-19 environment.

The impact on our economy of these disruptions to supply chains will be devastating. Ensuring the uninterrupted flow of commodities and goods to and from international and domestic markets through the Port of Montreal is essential to the economic well-being of Canadians across the country, particularly now as we enter a period of economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Government of Canada has provided significant assistance to the parties. Over the last two and a half years, a federal government mediator has supported over 100 bargaining sessions. Despite our best efforts and this support, there is no agreement in sight as the parties remain unable to find common ground. This has now resulted in yet another disruption at the port with very real consequences for multiple industries that depend on access to international markets.

Our government firmly believes that the best deals are reached at the bargaining table. However, intervention is sometimes necessary when the parties are at a significant and long-standing impasse, particularly when a work stoppage is causing significant harm to Canadians. We cannot allow the situation we saw in August 2020 to repeat itself, particularly in the midst of this pandemic. If the current stoppage continues, serious accumulated and negative impacts will continue to be felt all over Canada.

Canadians are counting on us to help the parties resolve their differences as quickly as possible to avoid a worsening of the situation. Stakeholders are counting on us as well, many of whom have already reached out directly to urge the government to do everything in its power to protect the economy, workers' jobs and the well-being of Canadians. As I mentioned earlier, the government will continue to support the parties in their negotiations, and it strongly encourages them to reach an agreement as soon as possible. We take the use of this legislation very seriously. It is our least-favoured option. I very strongly encourage the parties to reach a deal as soon as possible before this legislation is passed. The parties are at the table now. I hope the message continues to be heard loud and clear, but we cannot afford to wait.

We are committed to free and collective bargaining, and we believe in the collective bargaining process. Negotiated agreements are always the best solution. The parties began this round of collective bargaining in September 2018, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service has been involved since October 2018.

In the last two and a half years, the parties have met over 100 times. This is a significant investment on the part of the government and clearly demonstrates our commitment to the process. The existing collective bargaining agreement expired on December 31, 2018. The agreement covers all approximately 1,100 workers employed by the member companies of the MEA engaged in the loading and unloading of vessels, and other related work at the Port of Montreal.

On October 11, 2018, the government appointed a conciliation officer from the federal mediation and conciliation service. On December 11, we appointed two mediators to attempt to help the parties resolve their differences and reach an agreement that worked for everyone. On February 4, 2021, I added two senior mediators to this file to assist the parties in their negotiations.

The Canada Industrial Relations Board has also been involved in this dispute.

On October 23, the MEA filed an application with the Canada Industrial Relations Board to determine which activities would need to be maintained in the event of a work stoppage at the port to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. Neither party could initiate a work stoppage until the CIRB decided on the matter.

The proceedings before the CIRB and related litigation in federal court lasted over a year. During this time, the parties continued to bargain with the help of the federal mediators, holding 40 bargaining sessions between December 11, 2018 and June 8, 2020, the date the CIRB decision was rendered.

Ultimately the CIRB found that the parties did not need to maintain any activities in the event of the work stoppage beyond their statutory obligation under the Canada Labour Code to continue service for grain vessels. However, the CIRB did acknowledge the union's commitment to continuing servicing two vessels that supplied Newfoundland and Labrador. The parties were legally entitled to begin a strike or lockout as of the date of the decision, provided they gave the 72-hour notice.

Less than a month after the CIRB decision was released, with the support of 99% of its membership, the union commenced a partial strike on July 2, 2020. Four work stoppages followed that summer, each one increasing in duration and impact, ending an unlimited strike that started on August 10, 2020. There was also increasing tension around the port on August 13, 2020. Eight people were arrested and charged with intimidation, mischief and assault, following a confrontation between union members and managers who were brought in as replacement workers.

Eleven days later, on August 21, 2020, the parties agreed to a seven-month truce, during the period of which they would keep bargaining and assume all port activities. That truce ended on March 21, 2021.

Throughout these events, the parties have continued to receive intense mediation support from the federal mediators. I want to take this opportunity to thank the federal mediators for their support.

However, despite these ongoing mediation efforts, at the start of February, the MEA filed a bad faith bargaining complaint with the CIRB, asking it to order the parties to binding arbitration. The CIRB issued its ruling on March 17, finding that any determination of bad faith bargaining would be premature, as the parties were still working on the negotiation of a new collective agreement.

My colleague, the Minister of Transport, and I have also reached out to the parties directly to urge them to continue to work toward an agreement. Despite these efforts, negotiations remain stalled and no end is in sight.

On April 10, the employer gave 72 hours' notice of its intention to modify the conditions of employment for members of CUPE 375. According to the notice, employees would no longer be guaranteed a minimum weekly income and would instead be remunerated only for hours worked.

Later that same day, the union gave 72 hours' notice of its intention to no longer perform overtime, work on weekends or participate in training. The union committed to maintaining services for vessels coming to and from Newfoundland and Labrador, and services for grain vessels that must be maintained in accordance with section 87.7(1) of the Canada Labour Code, which specifies that in the event of a job action, the movement of grain must not be affected.

On April 13, the parties implemented the actions described in their respective notices. Recently, the situation has escalated. On April 22, the employer advised the union that it would be invoking the provisions of the collective agreement that imposed a specific shift schedule requiring workers to work the entire shift.

The following day, the union gave notice of its intention to stop all work at the port, beginning at 7 a.m. on April 26. On Monday morning, that is exactly what happened, a complete general strike, unlimited in duration, began at the Port of Montreal.

The parties have reached an impasse and it is clear that despite ongoing assistance from federal mediators for the last two and a half years, they remain unable to find a common ground. We urgently need to find a way to move forward, particularly in light of the recent escalation in job action, which has paralyzed the port.

Our government has done everything we could to help the parties resolve their differences without a stoppage. We believe in the collective bargaining process. There are, however, exceptional circumstances where the government must step in. This is one of those exceptional circumstances. The impact is vast and deep and the situation is dire.

When it is only the two parties at the bargaining table that stand to suffer grave consequences as a result of work stoppage, there is no justification for the government to intervene. However, when a strike or lockout is disrupting the economy to the degree that it has and has caused significant and permanent damage to the livelihoods and well-being of Canadians across the country, such as what we are seeing with this escalating work stoppage at the Port of Montreal, the government must intervene even if it is to intervene with a heavy heart.

Canadians are counting on medicines and medical equipment, farmers are counting on receipt of seed and fertilizer to grow crops and feed Canadians and Canadians are counting on products and goods, including food, medicines and medical equipment, specifically dialysis products. This is a concern in the best of times. Now, in the midst of a pandemic, these concerns are heightened.

I have heard messages from stakeholders loud and clear. This is literally a matter of life and death has been the message communicated to me. If medical products and life-saving medical devices do not get to hospitals and patients in a timely manner, the health of Canadians is at stake. We know there are ships currently with COVID-related products, pharmaceutical and medical equipment, that now cannot get through. The impacts are vast and deep. Ensuring the uninterrupted flow of these goods is critical at this time.

The parties could not reach a negotiated agreement after two and a half years of negotiations, and the help of a federal mediator at over 100 bargaining sessions. We cannot afford to wait any longer to intervene. There is too much at stake. We must act before irreparable damage is done to the economies of Montreal, the Province of Quebec and Canada as well as the health and safety of Canadians across the country.

We will continue to work with both parties in an effort to help them find common ground. The federal government will continue to support the negotiations between the parties. As I have said, the parties are currently at the table. We strongly encourage them, with the support of the federal mediation and conciliation service, to come to an agreement at the table.

We also have a responsibility to act in the interests of Canadians whose lives and livelihoods are affected by the work stoppage, which is the result of failure to reach a negotiated agreement after the two and a half years of federally supported negotiations of the Syndicat des débardeurs, known also as CUPE Local 375, and the Maritime Employers Association. That is why we are introducing this legislation today.

Labour

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, unions built the middle class in Saint John—Rothesay, and today, unions like IBEW, CUPW, CUPE, PSAC, ILA, Unifor, IAFF, and SJPA, and union leaders like Darlene Bembridge, Duane Squires, Craig Melvin, Erin Howell-Sharpe, Tammy Nadeau, Pat Riley, Kevin Suttie, and Jean Marc Ringuette are pillars of my community.

In 2015, the people of Saint John—Rothesay sent me here to stand up for them. One of the ways I have done just that since taking office is by standing up for my constituents' collective bargaining rights, both in this House and at HUMA, where I was tremendously proud to stand up for Bill C-4 and Bill C-62 to repeal of Conservative anti-union legislation in both places.

I will always stand up for the rights of workers in my riding, and I will always stand up for good middle-class jobs for the people of Saint John—Rothesay.

Federal Trades Strategy

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a minute or two to voice my support for Motion No. 227. Updating the federal labour standards is way overdue and should have been done a long time ago. It should have been done before, never mind dealing with a motion on the eve of Parliament, but at least maybe we are starting to move in that particular area. We have been consulting and now we are attempting to act.

There was a review done by the previous Liberal government in 2004. After a decade of inaction by the Conservatives, we are trying to pick it up where we left off. Again, there is only so much that we can do in three and a half years, and we cannot deal with all of the issues that we want to deal with. Therefore, we do the best we can to get things moving in the direction we want to be able to protect Canadian workers and help set the stage for good, quality jobs.

We need labour standards that reflect current workplace realities that will also help employers recruit and retain employees while looking after their well-being. It is a win for everyone. It is why the member for Niagara Centre put forward a motion that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be required to undertake a study of the creation of a federal trades strategy to consider the labour shortages in the skilled trades, which we know are a high priority for our government, but they are also a high priority for the country.

We have already moved forward with some changes, and here are just a few examples. One of the first priorities our government had was to pass Bill C-4, restoring fairness, balance and stability to labour relations, which was an important thing that we did.

I see that you are standing, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much for allowing me to have one minute to make a point. I look forward to seeing this motion move forward.

Government Priorities

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been unequivocal in our support for labour, and we are happy to celebrate that this May Day.

There is no question that since forming government, we passed Bill C-4 to eliminate the unfair Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 that Harper passed. We amended the Canada Labour Code to give federally regulated employees the right to flexible work arrangements and implement different leaves. We strengthened occupational health and safety standards. We passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from workplace harassment and violence.

We will continually stand up for labour and stand up for workers across Canada.

Precarious Employment

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer support for the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie's motion, Motion No. 194, and I would like to thank him for bringing this issue to the floor for debate.

Canadians have worked hard to achieve the lowest unemployment rate in over 40 years. However, this number can only tell us so much about the employment situation in Canada. While good jobs are being created by Canadian businesses every day, there are still hard-working people who put in a full day's work but receive barely part-time compensation.

Our government has worked hard to support Canadian labour and the right of association. Immediately after the election, our government passed Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. These bills restored fairness and balance to labour relations by repealing legislation that undermined and weakened labour rights in our country. However, there is much more to do to ensure working Canadians receive fair treatment and fair compensation.

This motion speaks to a serious and growing problem across Canada that if left unaddressed could lead to serious labour issues. That is why this motion is so important. An in-depth study on precarious employment in Canada can provide the government with a blueprint to tackle this issue head-on.

As was pointed out earlier by the member for Sault Ste. Marie when speaking to this motion, precarious employment is tricky to nail down. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that a fifth of professionals are in some form of precarious work. Furthermore, the survey found that professionals in precarious employment are more likely to have a post-graduate degree than professionals who are in non-precarious work. Professional women are also more likely than their male counterparts to be in precarious situations, with women accounting for 60% of all professionals in a precarious work circumstance. Clearly, precarious work does not fit neatly into the norms of the traditional work environment and traditional work definitions.

These statistics offer far more questions than answers, questions that the HUMA committee can begin to unravel. While we do not know all that we would like to know, the root of this problem clearly lies in our rapidly changing economy. Thankfully, government has already started to address some of the stress points in this changing economy.

To provide young people the skills and networking opportunities necessary to find meaningful employment, our government invested $221 million in Mitacs, for example. This program creates 10,000 paid internships per year, providing the experience young people need to succeed. This program, coupled with the $73-million investment in the student work-integrated learning program, means nearly 60,000 Canadian students will benefit from a paid internship over the next five years.

The Government of Canada has also partnered with Ryerson University to create Canada's largest work-integrated learning, recruitment and reporting platform, known as “Magnet”. Magnet combines a network of employers, post-secondary institutions, industry associations and community partners to match skills with employment opportunities.

On February 14, the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour as well as the Minister of Finance announced plans for a new future skills centre and future skills council. To support this initiative, the Government of Canada is investing $225 million over four years and $75 million per year thereafter in future skills development.

However, it is not enough to prevent people from becoming precariously employed. We need to develop pathways for precarious workers to acquire skills that are in demand. In budget 2017, the government initiated a three-year pilot project to help adults who want to return to school, with an investment of $287 million over three years. It is clear, as the national and international economies change, that Canada and Canadians must put an emphasis on lifelong learning and skills development.

The disruption in the labour market calls for a flexible and forward-thinking policy. For this policy to be effective, we need a two-pronged approach. The first begins with Motion No. 194 to identify and narrow down the indicators of precarious employment. As the motion calls for, we need to dig into the data to come to a more complete understanding of what exactly precarious employment is both in terms of who it is affecting and in terms of its larger role in the Canadian economy.

The second part of this plan depends on a suite of flexible and proactive programs to lead young people to opportunities for quality employment. The plan must also offer those in precarious work situations a route to new opportunities or new skills and new training that will allow them to find fair, meaningful and reliable employment.

Yesterday the finance minister echoed the Prime Minister's comment that the global economy is changing faster than it ever has before, and it is moving slower now than it ever will in the future. If Canadians are to prosper and find security for themselves and their families in a changing global economy, we need to understand how these shifts will affect workers and Canadians.

As indicated in the speech by the member for Sault Ste. Marie and his motion, Canadians affected by precarious employment do not fit neatly into one or two industries or demographics.

Our government has taken steps to strengthen union rights to association and to provide access to education and skills training programs. However, precarious employment is unlike other forms of work and demands a more thorough examination by Parliament. Understanding the indicators of precarious employment will help federal, provincial and municipal governments address under-compensated workers.

When we tolerate full-time work turning into part-time pay with no benefits, we run a serious risk of losing ground that workers and Canadians will struggle with over the next generation.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to act in the best interests of Canadians, which is why I will be supporting Motion No. 194. I urge all members to also support Motion No. 194.

I would like to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for bringing this motion to the floor for debate.

Canada Labour Code

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for permitting me to be a part of the debate on Bill C-420, tabled by my colleague the hon. member for Mirabel.

First of all, I would like to remind the House what this bill is about.

Bill C-420 would amend the Canada Labour Code, also known as the code, in order to accomplish three things.

First, it would prohibit employers from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

Second, it would authorize the minister of labour to enter into an agreement with the government of a province to provide for the application to pregnant and nursing employees of certain provisions of the provincial legislation concerning occupational health and safety.

Lastly, Bill C-420 would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act to clarify the application of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec.

Tabling the bill gives us the opportunity to review the Government of Canada's actions in regard to labour relations especially, as well as in regard to working conditions for pregnant and nursing employees.

I want to use my time today to go over some of the actions that have been taken.

Let us talk first about what Bill C-420 proposes to do with regard to replacement workers and labour relations reform in Canada.

The bill seeks to amend the code to make it an offence for employers to hire replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on a lawful work stoppage. Any contravention of this provision would entail a fine of up to $10,000 for the employer. The bill would also permit an employer to not reinstate any locked out or striking employee at the end of the work stoppage.

We have to keep in mind that amending the code can have an impact on labour relations if it is not done properly. Any proposed amendment requires a broader comprehensive review of part I, as well as a tripartite consultation process that involves the government, the labour movement and, of course, employers. In fact, all concerned parties, including academics and external stakeholders, should be consulted since these reforms would affect a great number of Canadians across the country.

It is a long-standing practice not to amend the code in a piecemeal fashion or without soliciting the input of affected stakeholders. The current provisions in the code are the result of such a review and represent a carefully crafted compromise between the interests of employers and trade unions.

Let me provide an example. In 1995, a working group, mandated by the minister of labour, led an extensive public consultation on part I of the code. Workers, employers and government stakeholders were consulted, as well as external stakeholders, such as academics and others, who could provide relevant insight. The working group's report, entitled “Seeking a Balance”, formed the basis of the significant changes to part I of the code that came into effect in 1999.

The consultation process is critical to any legislative changes made to industrial relations at the federal level and our government has always respected that.

Since our government took office, we have been committed to re-establishing a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada. Re-establishing a climate of collaboration and developing evidence-based policies is our objective. The very first step we took in that direction was to table Bill C-4 to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. We did this because Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were both adopted without having been through the aforementioned tripartite consultation process typically applied to labour law reforms. This process is an essential part of the foundation that supports free collective bargaining.

Let us talk now about pregnant and nursing employees. The health and safety of all workers, including pregnant and nursing workers, is a priority for our government. Let us not forget that federally regulated workers everywhere in Canada are very well protected by the strong provisions on preventive withdrawal provided for in the code. In fact, the code contains provisions on reassignments and leaves of absence for pregnant and nursing employees. These provisions provide protective measures to help them to pursue their employment in a safe environment.

In addition to provisions already in place, our government has taken a number of actions to ensure the health and safety of all employees, including pregnant and nursing employees. First, we have put forward new compliance and enforcement measures for occupational health and safety standards and labour standards. These measures include monetary penalties and administrative fees for employers who are repeat offenders, the authority to publish the names of these employers, greater power for inspectors, new recourse against reprisals, and improvements in the wage-recovery process.

Next, we have introduced amendments to the code to give federally regulated private sector employees the right to request flexible work arrangements. We have also put forward a series of new leave provisions, including a five-day personal leave, of which three days are paid, and five days of paid leave for victims of family violence, out of a total of 10 days of leave.

In addition to these provisions, other recently introduced amendments to the code would provide eligible working parents with improved access to maternity and parental leave once these amendments come into effect.

On top of all that, I must remind everyone that the government supported Bill C-243, an act respecting the development of a national maternity assistance program strategy. The bill is now in the other House for review.

Let us now turn our attention to the Charter of the French Language in Quebec. The 1982 Constitution Act, which enshrines English and French as our country's official languages, provides that both these languages be given equal status in all governmental and parliamentary institutions. Additionally, two separate statutes, the Quebec charter and the federal Official Languages Act, regulate the language of work in Quebec. Active companies in Quebec, including those incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act, are already required under provincial law to comply with the Charter of the French Language. That includes being registered under a French name.

Consider also that the labour program has never received any complaints from federally regulated private sector employees in Quebec concerning an inability to work in French. This is backed up by a 2013 government report that concluded that these employees in Quebec seem generally able to work in French in their workplaces. If we look at Quebec's 2016 census, there are, in fact, an increasing number of workers using French as their main language, or equally with English, while on the job. Between 2006 and 2016, the rate of workers whose mother tongue was English and who mainly used French at work rose from about 23% to 25%. Meanwhile, workers whose mother tongue was a language other than English or French and who mainly used French on the job increased from 46.5% to 48% during this same period.

As members can see, our government is proactive not only on the issue of labour relations, but also on the issue of working conditions for all Canadians, including pregnant or nursing women, as well as on the issue of language of work for federally regulated employees in Quebec.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Mirabel, for his important work on Bill C-420.

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am glad the member opposite realizes that we have a high degree of respect for organized labour and, in fact, such a degree of respect that the first piece of legislation we introduced and passed was Bill C-4, which restored the rights of organized labour to collectively bargain and organize. It repealed Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, two very harmful pieces of legislation that the Conservatives had rammed through the House in an effort to diminish the ability of organized labour to grow its movement, to work, as the member pointed out, on ensuring that there is decent work for people all across the country.

We also ratified ILO Convention 98, which guarantees the right to organize and collectively bargain. We have introduced legislation that we worked on with unions which unions have been calling for, for decades. These are things like pay equity, federally regulated proactive pay equity, something that unions have been calling for, including the union involved in this dispute, flexible work arrangements, and protection of federally regulated workers from violence or harassment in the workplace. In this respect, I would refer to Bill C-65, which recently passed. We have introduced updates to the Canada Labour Code to modernize it and protect the most vulnerable in the workplace, again in partnership with organized labour. The list goes on in terms of the work we have done in partnership with unions, because we recognize the important role they play in establishing a standard that often protects the most vulnerable and people who are not unionized in this country.

I will also speak to the second part of the member's question. The member asked what we have done to ensure we could work with the parties to help them arrive at a collective agreement. From my perspective, we have done everything we can to support the parties to get there themselves. For example, over a year ago, both parties agreed to work with a mediator, so we appointed the federal mediation service early on in their talks to help them have productive talks and work through some of the substantial issues that both the union and the corporation were facing. The mediators worked with the parties for well over a year. When those talks broke down, they asked—

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we were also elected to make life better for middle-class Canadians, including owners of small and medium-sized businesses and workers all across Canada. With this time of year being the busiest retail season, Canadians need to be able to count on Canada Post to deliver the goods Canadians and businesses need.

Let me tell the House about Maureen Lyons, the owner of Mo McQueen and Sons, in Winnipeg. She is a stay-at-home mom with four children and a health disability. Here is what she had to say about the labour disruption:

If by the end of the week, by some miracle, things could resume or at least the shopping public’s faith in the system of delivery could be restored, I think it would help a great deal.

We are as grassroots as it gets. I don't make a ton of money as it is. It is so frustrating. We're the little guys. And I'm not just a seller.... I'm also trying to find things for my own children for Christmas that I can't get.

The Minister of Public Services and Procurement and I have been in touch with the parties directly on numerous occasions to urge them to continue to work towards reaching agreements. Despite all the efforts I listed yesterday, the two parties remain unable to find common ground on a number of outstanding issues related to wages, job security and workload.

With more than 200 communities across the country directly impacted by the strikes, we cannot afford to wait any longer. I will repeat: Our government does not take back-to-work legislation lightly. This is the first time our government is using this tool, and we believe it should only be used as a last resort. That belief has not changed for me personally or for our government. However, having exhausted all other possibilities, we believe it is the only remaining option.

This is about protecting the public interest and avoiding further harm to Canadian businesses and communities, and indeed Canadians who rely on Canada Post. Older Canadians, persons with disabilities, low-income earners and Canadians living in rural, remote and northern areas who rely on physical mail delivery, including indigenous peoples in some of the most remote communities in our country, are disproportionately affected when their access to physical mail delivery is disrupted.

The cost of postal alternatives, such as courier companies, can be prohibitively high, especially in rural and remote communities. In some remote northern areas, there are no alternatives. Canadians in the north are twice as reliant on parcel delivery services as the rest of Canadians.

Stephanie Destree of The Silk Road Spice Merchant, in Calgary, says, “Sometimes we ship to more rural places, so we go with Canada Post. We are finding delays when we use Canada Post, and sometimes up to three weeks of delays.”

A Toronto Star reader sent the following letter to the editor:

While mail disruption is an inconvenience to many of us living in Canada, it is an impossible situation for those in remote fly-in communities in Northern Canada.

Unlike other Canadians who have options of private courier services, those living in these regions must rely on Canada Post for all of their deliveries.

Through a newly formed non-profit organization...I am personally involved in sending much-needed food to shelters and soup kitchens; warm clothing to the homeless, poor and elderly; school supplies and food to daycares and schools in both Nunavut and the Northwest Territories....

For many of these children, these will be the only gifts they receive this year.

The postal strike has played havoc with our efforts to get these gifts to the children in time for Christmas. Besides the time delays and uncertainty of delivery, there is an added expense of about $1,000 to upgrade our service level to Express Post in the hopes these parcels will receive faster service when the strike action rotates.

Weather is always a concern in the winter in getting parcels to the North in a timely manner but the strikes have made it an incredibly difficult and expensive challenge.

That was from Beverley Mitchell in Toronto.

Nearly nine million Canadians, about 30% of our population, live in rural and remote areas, where access to the Internet can be extremely limited. Today is Black Friday, and so many businesses depend on their sales today and through to the end of the holiday season to survive. This has real human impacts. Small business owners are our neighbours, and they are also significant employers in our country. We are looking at job losses and lower hours at a time of year when so many families are already over-extended.

Jim Danahy, CEO of Customer Lab, says:

We have Indigenous population in very small and sometimes isolated communities that you can only reach by water or by air. So, in those cases, the local economies can be hit quite significantly.

At the same time, our reputation as a reliable market for commerce and trade is at risk, because international partners are not able to ship mail and parcel shipments on to Canada Post. I spoke yesterday about small e-sellers whose razor-thin margins leave many of them unable to afford the higher cost of shipping through courier companies. In the event of a lengthy postal strike, many companies, particularly smaller e-commerce companies, may not make it through the season. Forty percent of online sales take place in the fourth quarter, which the strike is currently impacting.

Canadians expect us to act. We have done everything we could, and this is a last resort. That is why we are introducing this legislation, which I will take a few minutes to explain.

The legislation we are introducing today would order an immediate end to the worker stoppages and the resumption and continuation of postal services at noon EST on the day after the day on which it receives royal assent. The most recent collective agreements will be extended until new collective agreements are established.

To help the parties find common ground on outstanding issues, an impartial mediator-arbitrator will be appointed. The parties will have an opportunity to choose the mediator-arbitrator, and within 48 hours of coming into force of the bill, the parties will need to provide me with names of three persons to serve as the mediator-arbitrator. If the parties fail to propose the same person, one will be appointed from this list, taking into consideration advice from the chairperson of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. This is to ensure the impartiality of the individual who will be chosen.

The legislation would provide for the mediator-arbitrator to resolve all outstanding issues through mediation, or if mediation fails on particular issues, arbitrate them through an arbitration model of his or her choice based on guiding principles. The mediator-arbitrator will have seven days to mediate all outstanding issues between the parties, which can be extended to a maximum of 14 days if the parties consent. If the parties fail to reach agreements within the mediation period, the mediator-arbitrator must arbitrate all outstanding issues within 90 days of his or her appointment.

I will now talk about the principles that will guide the mediator-arbitrator's decisions. These have been crafted carefully to provide a balance to the mediator-arbitrator and take into consideration the concerns that we have heard throughout the negotiating process. They are: to ensure the health and safety of all employees; to ensure the fair treatment of temporary, part-time and other employees in non-standard employment as compared to full-time, permanent employees; to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of Canada Post; to create a culture of collaborative labour-management relations; and for high-quality service to be provided by Canada Post at a reasonable price to Canadians. The union and Canada Post can reach a voluntary agreement at any time before the mediator-arbitrator submits his or her final report to me, which would end the mediation-arbitration process.

I believe that we have taken the steps to ensure that everything possible has been done and is done through this proposed legislation to encourage the parties to reach agreement fairly and swiftly while in the meantime ensure services at Canada Post resume, preventing further harm. That is why I urge all of my hon. colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.

I reiterate that our government does not take this legislation lightly. We have worked hard to restore fairness and balance to the labour landscape in Canada since coming into office. Through Bill C-4, our government's first piece of legislation and our first official act in Parliament, we repealed two private members' bills that undermined unions; one that imposed excessive reporting requirements on unions, and a second that made it harder for workers to unionize. Since then, we have introduced legislation and programs that improve the lives of Canadian workers and strengthen the labour movement.

As I mentioned before, we did not intervene early, because we believe in the collective bargaining process. We believe that the collective bargaining process results in the best outcomes: strong agreements and a positive workplace culture. However, we also have a responsibility to Canadians and to the businesses that drive our economy, and when the consequences of a work stoppage become so great that they begin to result in serious and, if left unchecked, lasting harm, we have to act.

We will continue to support the parties through every means possible, as we have done from the very beginning. We strongly encourage them to reach agreements as soon as possible, and we will continue to provide the parties with the tools they need to do so.

As I said earlier, the best agreements are always the ones that parties arrive at themselves. This proposed legislation allows the parties to reach a voluntary agreement at any time before the mediator-arbitrator submits his or her final report to the minister, which would end the mediator-arbitrator process.

We are in no way legislating an agreement. This legislation is about ensuring the process exists to find one. The well-being of Canadians and the viability of many Canadian businesses depend on a speedy resolution. I urge everyone in this House to support this legislation so we can make that happen as quickly as possible. Canadians are counting on us.

Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services Operations Legislation

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, some people have started their speeches by saying they are pleased to join in the debate. Make no mistake that it is difficult. The NDP likes to characterize it as something less than that, but members should be assured that this is an action this government has not undertaken lightly. This has been quite some time in the making.

Since coming to government after the October 2015 election, Canadians have seen, and certainly organized labour has seen, that we go about our business quite differently than the previous Conservative government did. We take a different approach to how we work with organized labour. Having been here during that 10-year period, it was nothing short of an attack on organized labour. From the outset, it was obvious that Stephen Harper had organized labour in his crosshairs and was willing to do what he had to do in order to throw a wrench into organized labour in this country.

We saw egregious bills like Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, bills which were purposeful in trying to handcuff unions in this country from being successful and from giving them any opportunity to grow and represent Canadian workers. It is unfortunate, because when we look at organized labour, we can certainly say that nobody has helped grow the middle class more than union leadership in this country, which fights for fair wages, fair benefit packages, overtime benefits and health and safety issues. It has been organized labour that has led those fights over the years. We, as Canadians, enjoy many of the benefits of those efforts.

When we became government, one of our first pieces of legislation was Bill C-4, which was legislation that led to overturning the egregious bills I just referenced, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We were trying to restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations. We were trying to restore a tripartite approach to developing labour laws in this country, where we have workers, employers and the government sitting down and crafting labour laws that protect us all and benefit us all.

We saw that thrown out of balance. We saw the attempt to change the Canada Labour Code through backdoor initiatives. Rather than using a tripartite approach, we saw it being changed by private members' legislation. We saw how much benefit it brought the Conservatives in the last election. Any organized labour, any rank and file member, in this country knew two numbers. They knew the number 377 and they knew the number 525, because both those bills were earmarked for organized labour.

We strengthened occupational health and safety standards in this country, because we believe every worker in this country has the right to arrive home safe to be with their families. We passed Bill C-65 to protect federally regulated employees from workplace harassment and violence. I try to give credit where credit is due, and I must say that both the Conservatives and the NDP were very helpful and supportive of this legislation. We have good legislation, one which has been a long time in the making and a long time coming, but certainly both opposition parties were supportive of it.

We ratified ILO Convention 98 to ensure the rights to organize and to enter into collective bargaining. That convention had been advocated for for over 40 years, and it was our minister who was able to get that ratified at the ILO, something which we are very proud of as a government.

In budget implementation act No. 2, we brought forward legislation that will modernize labour standards to reflect today's workplaces. This is something from which many in organized labour will not benefit as it is for the many unorganized workspaces where shop floors are not unionized. It is for people in precarious work who are trying to knit together two or three part-time jobs in order to make a living and pay the bills. These are the most vulnerable workers in this country.

The modernization of labour standards in this country is going to be of help to all of these workers. This helps make sure that contracts are not flipped and that benefits are not lost when contracts are changed so that if there is a seniority list and certain people have worked for the company for seven years, they are able to maintain the benefits they worked for and earned over seven years and not lose those benefits in any way. We are very pleased to be able to move forward on that.

We have introduced pay equity legislation to ensure fairness. This makes sure that people and women in this country get equal pay for fair and equal work. We have also doubled the benefits in the wage earner protection program.

These are all positive initiatives we have embarked on and undertaken in this government.

The banning of the domestic use and the import and export of asbestos is very important. This is something that the CLC, Unifor, Canada's Building Trades Unions and many others in organized labour have been fighting to get for years. We are working with organized labour and employers as well, taking a tripartite approach to making sure we get right the banning and abolition of asbestos.

We as a government are committed to free, collective bargaining, and we believe that a negotiated agreement is always the best solution in any industrial dispute. That is why we refrained for so long before we got involved in this particular dispute.

This dispute has gone on for a year. We were engaged right from the start, appointing a mediator to let both sides share their grievances and find a way to come to some kind of agreement. A mediator was involved for a year. As the strike vote was taken and as the rotating strike began five weeks ago, we even appointed a second mediator and then a special mediator.

These mediators were selected from a list. We provided a list, and both sides were able to weigh in on who the mediator should be so as to build trust in the mediation process and in the mediator himself. The mediator was agreed upon.

The minister was very clear yesterday. She has worked tirelessly, as has her staff and the department. They have done everything possible to assist the parties to reach an end to this dispute. Despite their efforts, CUPW and Canada Post just have not been able to get to an agreement. Therefore, it is with great reluctance that we have been left with no other option but to introduce back-to-work legislation to get our postal service back functioning at full capacity.

It is important to understand that we knew as the process evolved that it was probably going to land here because both sides were very entrenched on a couple of different aspects of the negotiation. It is important that Canadians and Canadian businesses who rely on Canada Post and its crucial infrastructure are able to do their business. We know that 70% of online purchases are delivered by Canada Post. We know that Canadians rely on it as a service and that it is critical to many Canadian businesses.

In my own riding I have a small company called Galloping Cows, an exceptional company owned by Ron and Joanne Schmidt. They make pepper jellies and chutneys. They are very busy at this time of the year. We have many people from my riding and Atlantic Canada whose children have moved away and are living elsewhere, some in Fort McMurray. Thus, the packages to Fort McMurray from Port Hood are always a big part of the business that Galloping Cows does each year, which, certainly from Remembrance Day to Christmas, could make or break this young business. They have really felt the impact. It is not just that orders have not been sent, but also the fear of those who have sent parcels already. That is a big part of it, the threat of not getting the parcels to people in time for Christmas.

Throughout these negotiations, the Government of Canada has been proactive and tireless in its attempts to have the parties reach an agreement. The minister has discussed this at length. Federal conciliation officers and mediators have been assisting the parties throughout their negotiations. We know that there have been a lot of side conversations with people. Beyond the actual negotiators, many people have wanted this to be resolved and have offered their input to try to find resolution to this. We appreciate their efforts.

However, when bargaining reached an impasse, we appointed a special mediator to bring a fresh set of eyes to the table. It is always of benefit when we can take some issues and look at them with a little bit of a different perspective.

The negotiations stalled again, so we offered voluntary arbitration. That was our suggestion. However, our government's offer of voluntary arbitration was declined. Thus, we have tried pretty much every club in the bag.

We also appointed a special mediator this week, in the hope of getting a deal. We have strongly encouraged the parties to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion. We believe that a negotiated agreement is always the best solution.

No member of our government wants to be dealing with back-to-work legislation, but there is no end in sight and that is why we find ourselves in this situation. Canadians are feeling the effects of this dispute and it would be irresponsible for us not to act in the interests of all Canadians.

As I said initially, I can contrast our government's approach to organized labour to that of past Conservative governments. We can also look at the back-to-work legislation by the Conservatives in 2011. We know that after two weeks of rotating strikes, former prime minister Harper imposed back-to-work legislation on Canada Post and the postal workers of CUPW. It was interesting because we know that the minister at the time appointed an arbitrator herself, which is a little different from what we have done. We have appointed a mediator-arbitrator where mediation will be first and foremost.

That mediation I know was mentioned by the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He wanted me to remind him of the guiding principles, because he had talked about the health and safety issues.

I will quote subclause 11(3) of the legislation, which states:

In rendering a decision or selecting a final offer under paragraph (1)(b), the mediator-arbitrator is to be guided by the need

(a) to ensure that the health and safety of employees is protected;

(b) to ensure that the employees receive equal pay for work of equal value;

Those are the guiding principles, which are vastly different from the guiding principles of the legislation put forward by the Conservatives back in 2011. We know they worked against unions. We know that its legislation was very heavily weighted against unions.

That is certainly not the case with this legislation. We have proven to be a party that supports unions and workers, and that believes in the collective bargaining process. This is a last resort and not something that our government takes lightly.

When a strike or lockout impacts only the two parties involved, the government will help when asked and will not intervene. However, when it affects Canadians and Canadian businesses and all available avenues have been exhausted, the government has a responsibility to intervene. That is why we are bringing forward this legislation to require Canada Post workers to return to work.

In closing, Canadians need to know that the government has done and continues to do everything in its power to help the parties. In any industrial dispute, we are willing to help the parties resolve their differences without a work stoppage. A work stoppage helps no one, neither the workers and their lost wages, nor the communities and others impacted by the postal services that businesses use.

This legislation is no Harper-era legislation. We are not forcing specific conditions on the union. We just need to get to an agreement. If we had any hope at this point that the differences between CUPW and Canada Post were close to a resolution, we would not be tabling this legislation. However, after five weeks of rotating strikes, we are forced to say that it is time to act. The government has been working with CUPW and Canada Post for the last year and has done everything possible to prevent this dispute. Let us get back to work, get the postal service functioning at maximum efficiency and get the parties to a deal.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, we believe in collective bargaining. That was why we introduced Bill C-4 to reverse harmful legislation of the previous government and to ensure workers had the right to organize freely and collectively bargain freely. However, we also are the federal government, with a responsibility to ensure that services on which Canadians rely are there when they need them.

This mediated process has been going on for well over a year, with rotating strikes taking place for five weeks. The parties still do not have an agreement. We hope they will reach that agreement in very short order. However, if they cannot reach one, we will help them with legislation that will be fair, principled and will help both parties achieve their goal.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have said before that we believe in the collective bargaining process. We support the collective bargaining process. That is why we introduced and passed Bill C-4, which restored rights and reversed harmful legislation, rammed through by the previous government, that was intended to minimize, reduce and delegitimize the labour movement. In fact, we amended the Canada Labour Code in partnership with labour, which gave us advice about protecting the most vulnerable in the workplace. We have strengthened occupational health and safety standards.

Let me talk about the legislation we have tabled, which we really hope we do not have to use. However, if we do have to use it, we have crafted it in a way that will set balanced guiding principles. I did not get a chance to tell the House about those principles earlier, so let me tell members the factors the arbitrator will have to take into account: the health and safety of workers, equal pay for work of equal value, fair treatment of part-time and temporary employees, the financial sustainability of Canada Post, the need for collaborative labour management relations and high-quality service for the public.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member opposite wants to talk about the work we have been doing with labour and the support for workers in our country, because in fact there is no question that our government has taken the well-being of workers very seriously.

First, we repealed Bill C-525 and C-377. We passed Bill C-4, which restored fair and balanced labour relations in the country. It made it easier for organized labour to recruit new members and grow their movements. We amended the Canada Labour Code to give federally regulated employees the right to flexible work arrangements and implement different leaves. We strengthened occupational health and safety standards. We passed Bill C-65, which provides federally regulated employees with protection against workplace violence. We ratified ILO convention 98 to ensure the right to organize and to collective bargaining.

Through Bill C-86, we are modernizing labour standards, largely informed by the conversations we have had with organized labour about the most vulnerable workers in our workplaces and the protections they need in a modern Canada Labour Code.

We introduced pay equity legislation. Again, it was appealed for by labour for many years before we formed government. We worked with them to make sure we could listen to those concerns and address something that is fundamentally a right: equal pay for work of equal value. We have almost doubled the benefits from the wage earner protection program.

I could go on. Our government profoundly believes in the rights of workers, especially the most vulnerable workers in our workplaces, and we have worked very well with organized labour to make sure we get those details right.

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise in this House to debate this motion. Our government believes in free and collective bargaining, and we have worked hard to restore fairness and balance to the labour landscape in Canada. In fact, one of the very first pieces of legislation introduced in this Parliament was Bill C-4, which repealed two private members' bills passed under the Harper administration that undermined unions. We did this because we recognize the important role unions play in ensuring our workplaces are safe, equitable and just.

In connection with this commitment, we also took steps to close the gender wage gap and increase job opportunities for women. Furthermore, we took action to reduce workplace hazards and harassment. We proposed significant changes to the Canada Labour Code to bring it in line with today's needs. Our government is proud of its partnership with labour, which is clearly reflected in our efforts to protect employees' right to organize in order to improve workplace safety and training.

We know that harmonious labour-management relations are very important to maintaining individual economic security and Canada's economic prosperity. With this in mind, our government does not take this decision lightly.

In this case, we have done everything possible to help Canada Post and CUPW reach an agreement in their ongoing collective bargaining negotiations, but the time has come to take action. Indeed, we have allowed these rotating strikes to go on for five weeks now, with no end in sight. The two parties remain unable to find common ground on a number of outstanding issues related to wages, job security and workload.

While these are all important issues, ones that our government has worked hard to address for all Canadians since taking office, we need to find a way to move forward.

Our government is a strong supporter of the collective bargaining process, but we also have a responsibility to Canadians and to the businesses that drive our economy. They cannot do that if a significant part of our national postal system is not working. The services that Canada Post provides to Canadians and businesses are essential to our country's success. Our government realizes this, and we are committed to ensuring that these services are not compromised in the future.

This is exactly why our government implemented a new vision for Canada Post. I was proud to participate in this process. This vision is designed to keep Canada Post relevant and sustainable in the long term, while still providing good jobs and quality services to Canadians across the country. Through innovation, market trend analysis and the adoption of new technologies to meet Canadians' expectations, we intend to work with employees to make this vision a reality. This is the future of Canada Post.

These rotating strikes, however, hit our more vulnerable populations the hardest. Older Canadians, pensioners, persons with disabilities, low-income earners and particularly Canadians living in rural, remote and northern areas, including indigenous people, are feeling the effects more than anyone.

It is important to remember that while e-commerce and online communications are the norm for many, almost nine million Canadians live in rural and remote areas where access to the Internet can be limited. These people need Canada Post more than anyone else. They need it up and running, and they need it running smoothly.

Clearly, businesses are feeling the negative effects too, especially small businesses, many of which do the bulk of their sales at this time of year. These are the businesses that are growing our economy and providing good, well-paid jobs to middle-class Canadian workers. In other words, we cannot wait any longer.

Since the start of the bargaining process between Canada Post and CUPW, we have been doing everything possible to help the parties reach agreements that work for everyone. Federal mediators have been assisting negotiations for nearly a year. When those negotiations were failing, we appointed a special mediator to bring a fresh perspective.

We have offered voluntary arbitration, and members of our government have reached out to both parties, urging them to continue working toward an agreement. In fact, they are continuing right now to work toward an agreement, and we hope they conclude these negotiations successfully.

Having exhausted all other possibilities, if that turns out to be the case, this legislation will be our only remaining option. First and foremost, this legislation would ensure that letter mail and parcels start moving again from coast to coast to coast without delay, protecting the public interest and avoiding further harm to Canadian businesses.

Second, under the legislation, the most recent agreements would be extended until new collective agreements are established.

Third, an impartial mediator-arbitrator would be appointed by mutual agreement of the parties to address all outstanding issues.

The mediator-arbitrator would have seven days to mediate negotiations between the parties, and that could be extended to 14 days if the parties agree. If the parties do not reach an agreement during the mediation period, the mediator-arbitrator would be required to arbitrate all outstanding issues within 90 days.

This legislative measure would get Canada Post back to work and lay the foundation for a speedy resolution of the outstanding issues.

That is what this is about: restoring necessary services to all Canadians in the immediate term and encouraging those involved to find common ground for the long term.

Let me reiterate that we do not take this decision lightly. This bill is a last resort. The government has done everything in its power to avoid this.

Jobs are at stake, the well-being of the most vulnerable members of society is at stake, and our economy is at stake. That is why I encourage every member of the House to support the speedy adoption of the motion, and also, if necessary, of the bill. We owe it to our business people, our citizens, Canada Post, postal workers and all Canadians.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the contrast between our government and the previous Harper Conservative government, which did not believe in fair and balanced labour relations; whipped in legislation as quickly possible, not only to end labour disruptions but to prevent them; and interfered in the collective bargaining process by introducing harmful legislation, which we repealed with Bill C-4.

That is why we have waited, because we want to make sure that we are doing everything possible to support the collective bargaining process to help these parties find a deal. We know that a deal arrived at by both parties working together is the strongest deal for Canada. We are going to continue the work we do to build up the labour movement and support the labour movement and take action when absolutely necessary.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that error.

As I said, we have worked really hard to restore fairness and balance to the labour landscape in Canada. One of the first pieces of legislation we introduced was Bill C-4, which repealed two private members' bills that were intentionally meant to undermine the rights of unions in the country. One bill imposed excessive reporting requirements on unions. The second bill made it harder for workers to unionize. This was important to us. We understand that organized labour support these good middle-class jobs that we talk about so often in this place.

In fact, we have taken other action, prompted by the union movement. We introduced modern labour standards as recently as last month. These are going to work in direct opposition to other Conservative governments that are repealing the rights of workers. We introduced pay equity to ensure women would have an opportunity to receive equal pay for work of equal value. We were successful in passing and receiving royal assent on Bill C-65, legislation on which we worked closely with organized labour, to ensure people were free from harassment and sexual violence in the workplace.

We will continue to work with organized labour to ensure that workers across the country can work for companies and organizations in which they are respected and have decent work.

We have not intervened early because we believe in the collective bargaining process. We have worked with the parties during this labour disruption to assist them in getting a deal with every tool we have. However, we also have a responsibility to all Canadians and to the businesses that drive our economy. When the consequences of a work stoppage become so great that they begin to result in serious or lasting harm, we must act. When a strike or lockout affects thousands, or even millions of people, the government must intervene.

The Canada Labour Code gives the parties in a dispute the right to a strike or lockout and back-to-work legislation should be used as a last resort. We will continue to support the parties through every means possible. As I have said, we still believe a deal is possible.

Canadians can be assured that our government has done everything in its power to help the two parties reach an agreement. We believe in the collective bargaining process. We believe in fair and balanced labour relations. We will continue our work with organized labour to support decent work and middle-class jobs in the country.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about our intention to take action to end the labour dispute between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, also known as CUPW.

Since the start of negotiations between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, we have been doing our best to help the parties find a solution.

We believe in the collective bargaining process. Negotiated agreements are always the best solution. We would not come down this road, however, we have exhausted every option.

Our government ran on a commitment to restore fair and balanced labour laws and relations, but we also have a responsibility to Canadian businesses that drive our economy.

As our country's primary postal operator, Canadians and Canadian businesses rely on Canada Post. Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers provide postal services that are of vital importance to Canadians and to Canadian businesses.

Older Canadians, persons with disabilities, low-income earners, as well as Canadians living in rural, remote and northern areas who rely on physical mail delivery, including indigenous peoples, are disproportionately affected during postal strikes. The costs of postal alternatives, such as courier companies, can be prohibitively high, especially in rural and remote areas. In some remote northern areas, there are no alternatives.

Canadians living in the north are more reliant on parcel delivery services than other Canadians, receiving approximately double the per capita parcel average in Canada in 2017. While e-commerce and e-communications are the norm for many, almost nine million Canadians, about 30% of the population, live in rural and remote areas where access to the Internet can be extremely limited.

We know that some of the most vulnerable in our country count on Canada Post for their cheques. These Canadians count on this money to scrape by, and they are put in very precarious positions by any delay, like Jack, who told me that as a person on Ontario disability any delay could mean a loss of housing for him. Many others rely on prompt payment to survive month to month.

The strikes have been going on for five weeks now. Canada Post said that it could expect delays of parcel and mail delivery into 2019 as a result of these rotating strikes. Canada Post has also told its commercial customers that at this point it cannot honour its delivery standards for any product because of the prolonged strikes. The strikes have created backlogs of mail and parcels just days before an expected rush of millions of additional parcels from Black Friday and Cyber Monday online sales.

Businesses are already feeling the negative impacts of the strikes. Significant delivery delays are resulting in order cancellations for the many Canadian businesses that are dependent on sales from Black Friday through to the end of the holiday to survive. There are reports of declines in e-commerce demand. The impacts of the rotating strikes are particularly pronounced for small and medium-sized businesses, because the fourth quarter is their busiest.

The reality is that if the strikes are left to continue through the holiday season, they would create significant hardship. That means job losses and fewer hours for Canadians who count on the extra money to get by.

At the same time, Canada Post has asked its international partners to halt mail and parcel shipments to Canada, as it continues to deal with a major delivery backlog that has grown as a result of the rotating strikes. This affects not only Canadians and Canadian businesses, but also Canada's reputation as a reliable market for commerce and trade.

Small and medium-sized businesses that rely more heavily on Canada Post for billing and order fulfillment are struggling. Some of these smaller companies, operating on eBay, Etsy and Amazon platforms as e-sellers, are disproportionately affected. According to a survey conducted on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or the CFIB, two-thirds of small and medium-sized enterprises surveyed said that they were being affected by the rotating strikes at Canada Post. According to the CFIB, costs are around $3,000 per business in terms of lost sales, cancelled orders, delays, or costs due to the use of more expensive delivery alternatives.

E-commerce is a significant source of economic growth in Canada. Compared to the 2011 postal strike, Canadians in 2018 have become greater consumers of e-commerce generated parcels. According to Statistics Canada, Internet-based sales from all retailers rose 31% to $15.7 billion in 2017. Up to 40% of these sales take place in the fourth quarter, which is currently being affected by the strike. In the event of an even longer postal strike, many companies, particularly smaller e-commerce companies, are saying they may not make it through the season.

Let me provide some of the real-life stories.

There is a company called Monkeys & More based in Halifax, which is run by Dale Kearney and his wife Sherrie. They specialize in selling handmade scarves, mittens and aprons online. They get orders from Canada and the U.S. during the holidays. However, this year, customers are reluctant to place orders for fear they will not receive their purchase by Christmas. Mr. Kearney said, “Normal years we're sold out by now. The rotating strike, it's killing us.”

How about Red Ribbon boutique? This is a shop on Edmonton's High Street. It is run by owner Rychelle Tuck, who relies heavily on Canada Post, as most of her sales are done online. Mrs. Tuck said that she knew packages would be late arriving to customers, but exactly how late was a mystery to her.

Small businesses like theirs are slowly becoming casualties of the ongoing Canada Post dispute.

In an article, Craig Patterson, director of Applied Research at the University of Alberta's School of Retailing, said that the margins of small businesses were “a lot thinner than the major retailers” and “They're relying on Canada Post a lot more, whereas bigger retailers can go to an alternative supplier”. He said that instead of taking the chance, many customers “will choose to go to...malls, as opposed to seeking out local businesses”, meaning money will often leave the local economy.

The strike is having an impact on the workers as well. Canada Post workers and other businesses affected are counting on the extra wages from this time of year as part of their revenue. In some cases, they need these wages to get by. Canadians are calling on us to take action.

The Retail Council of Canada sent an open letter to the Prime Minister, which said that the situation was heading into crisis territory, that the pace of parcel traffic was about to double and that the postal system was already overstretched.

We are not debating this legislation today because we still believe that Canada Post and CUPW can get a deal. I believe the two parties can still reach a negotiated agreement.

We still believe a deal can be reached, but we must be ready to step in if the parties cannot come to an agreement.

The parties are still negotiating, and nothing in this motion prevents that from continuing. We continue to provide them with all of the tools necessary to reach an agreement. Their negotiations started this time last year. The existing collective bargaining agreement expired on January 31, 2018, and these agreements covered approximately 8,000 rural and suburban letter carriers and 42,000 urban operations employees.

On June 29, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service received two notices of dispute from the union. The following week, on July 6, two conciliation officers were appointed to assist in the negotiations. On September 5, I appointed two mediators. CUPW began strike action on October 22. On October 24, I appointed the special mediator, Morton Mitchnick, and I have reappointed him twice since then to facilitate an agreement. Voluntary arbitration was offered and declined.

My colleague, the Hon. Carla Qualtrough, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, and I have reached out to the parties directly on many occasions to urge them to continue to work toward reaching agreements. We have worked hard to restore fairness and balance to the labour landscape in Canada, and these efforts demonstrate that.

Through Bill C-4, for example, our government's first piece of legislation—

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to answer questions put to me by my distinguished colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, whom I respect and hold in high esteem. It reminds me of the good times we had working together on certain bills, including the bill on medical assistance in dying. It was a delicate subject, but we worked well together, because there was no room for partisanship.

My colleague’s question concerns the fact that governments are formed to serve Canadians, that the public service exists to serve Canadians, and that we must create winning conditions to ensure that employees feel well treated so that they can provide good service. Of course, we do not disagree. That is why we are on the side of workers. We are not on the side of union bosses. That is an important distinction.

The Liberal government is cozying up to the big union bosses. It is their choice and their decision. The big bosses campaigned, with much fanfare, against the former government and in support of the current government. The big union bosses also decided to spend $5 million just before the election was called, without consulting workers and in contravention of political party financing rules and the election laws governing financing and public spending. That is why the prime minister called the election on August 2. We, the Conservatives, are always prepared to stand up for workers. Giving union bosses every advantage is not standing up for workers. That is why our two bills, which were attacked and defeated by Bill C-4, focused on union transparency and democracy.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to share the official opposition's opinion on Bill C-62. As I said a few moments ago during the question and comment period following the speech given by the President of the Treasury Board, we are opposed to this bill. We think that it seeks to please union bosses rather than making public servants a priority.

According to the government, this bill seeks to improve the bargaining process, but we do not think that the government is taking the right approach. We do not think that this bill actually improves the process; rather, it seems its aim is to please union bosses. During the last election, those union bosses were prepared to invest $5 million in advertising just before the election, without any regard for campaign finance laws, just to hurt the government that was duly elected by Canadians in 2011. The political party that was in office at that time, the Conservative Party did what it could to respond, but of course it was at a disadvantage in terms of spending money and accountability. I will come back to that a little later.

Our concern with this bill is that this is payback. It is not the first payback by Liberal government to the union's leader, because we saw it a year and a half ago when the government tabled Bill C-4. Bill C-4 was established by the government to kill two pieces of legislation we introduced when we were in office, which would permit and give more democracy and transparency in the union system.

This Liberal bill is the logical next step for the Liberals, although certainly not for us, and fits in nicely with what the government is doing to thank union leaders for their generous support during the last election campaign. As I was saying earlier, this bill seeks to establish certain bargaining measures. However, make no mistake, the Liberals' real goal here is to make the union leaders happy with the government's position. This falls clearly in line with the Liberal policy to please union leaders.

Almost two years ago to the day, the then minister of labour, an MP from Alberta, introduced Bill C-4. I was the official opposition employment critic at the time so I worked with the minister, together with my friend, the hon. member for Foothills. We fought tirelessly against that bill, which sought to annihilate two bills that were introduced and passed by the Conservatives under the previous prime minister between 2011 and 2015. Those two bills, C-377 and C-525, addressed democracy, transparency, and accountability of unions.

We Conservatives believe that if workers are to have the respect they deserve, they must be given the necessary tools. This includes asking union leaders to disclose their salaries and financial statements to the public. At the time, it was argued that this was something they could do themselves. However, when a union member pays his union dues, he is entitled to a tax refund. That concerns all Canadians, because it is their money being handed out as tax refunds, to the tune of $500 million.

Union leaders were not pleased that we were asking them to disclose all their expenses and salaries. However, when you have nothing to hide, you have a clear conscience. Of course, their natural allies, the Liberals, opposed the move and pledged to reverse the decision, which is tantamount to doing away with transparency. Thus, one of the first legislative positions of this very government, which boasts about being the most transparent in history, was an attack on union transparency.

This was the first bill that was killed by Bill C-4. The other bill was about democracy inside the union. If workers wanted unions in their shops, we asked to have consultation, but private consultation, a secret ballot. This is the best way to ensure people will be represented. The will of the people will be expressed with a lot of strength under secret ballots.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago you were elected by secret ballot, which is good. Who can oppose secret ballots in the House of Commons? When we elect a Speaker of the House, it is by secret ballot. However, the Liberals do not want to have secret ballots when workers decide whether to create unions in their shops. That is not fair. This is why we were, and still are, the champions of democracy and transparency in unions. Why are we champions of that? First and foremost, the most important people in the workforce are the workers, not the union bosses.

However, that is what the Liberals would do with this bill. The Liberals are on the side of union bosses instead of being the champions of the workers. I can assure the House that we will always be on the side of the workers. The government wants to kill that democracy and transparency.

That is what the Liberal government is trying to do with a series of bills to please union bosses and chip away at, if not wipe out entirely, everything the Conservative government did to enhance union transparency and democracy. That is why we still oppose this bill, which we do not think is right.

I should also point out that the government's approach has been a bit sloppy. Bill C-62 is a mash-up of two previously introduced bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-34. Bill C-5 was introduced in February 2016, which is almost two years ago now, and Bill C-34 was introduced in November 2016. The Liberals have extracted elements of both bills and inserted them into the bill we are debating today. Aside from the fact that we disagree with the provisions in the bill, which is no secret, we expected greater diligence from the government on this matter. They are the ones who will have to answer for it, though.

Members will recall the unfortunate statements made almost two years ago when debating Bill C-4 in the House. One of the arguments made by Liberal opponents was that the bills we passed, namely Bills C-377 and C-525, were backdoor bills. One of the most eminent members of the Liberal caucus, the member for Winnipeg North, said this. We know this member often rises to speak. He is vocal in the House, to say the least.

Those were sad memories for me when my friend, the Liberal member for Winnipeg North, called the two pieces of legislation “backdoor bills”. They were private members' bills. That is disrespectful. Each and every member of the House is a front-door member. Therefore, when we table something, it is tabled by the front door. There are no backdoor members, no backdoor pieces of legislation, no backdoor nothing. Everything is done by front-door members of Parliament, from whatever party. That is where we stand.

This experienced member's comments were an insult to all his government colleagues who introduce private members' bills, which we Conservatives respect even though we may not agree with them. That concludes my remarks on this bill.

We are very concerned about this bill. We believe that it is important to think of the workers first and foremost. We realize that government officials and, of course, union officials are in the midst of negotiations.

That goes without saying. One cannot negotiate with 500,000 people. We understand that, but those 500,000 people must trust the representatives they appoint to negotiate with government officials. The best way to establish this trust, to strengthen it, to cement it, if you will, is to ensure that there is greater transparency and democracy within unions, and the best way to achieve that is to have full disclosure. Then, if they want to make that leap and establish a union, they can use the secret ballot. That is the best way and the one which can be influenced the least, whether in a positive or negative manner. Unfortunately, this government has directly attacked this principle, which we consider to be fundamental.

In response to my question, the President of the Treasury Board referred to certain financial realities in Canada, but he forgot to mention a few things, particularly when he talked about support for families. The foremost duty of the President of the Treasury Board is to balance the books. Theoretically, he is the government's “Mister No”, the person who says yes or no to government spending. Why did he say yes to the first plan for government assistance for children, when the government forgot to take into account one minor detail, namely, inflation? As a result of this oversight, four years from now, parents will be getting less than they did from our former government six years earlier. Way to go, guys; that is great.

Any junior accounting technician in a company who forgot to calculate inflation would be kicked to the curb. How is it possible that the President of the Treasury Board, whose primary duty, undertaken at the behest of the Prime Minister, is to make sure that the numbers add up, somehow missed this administrative detail, namely calculating inflation? That is pathetic. He should be ashamed of such an oversight.

On another note, we also provided assistance for children, but we had a balanced budget. I am appealing to the President of the Treasury Board's dignity and sense of responsibility. He has a duty to balance the books. This government is running colossal and compulsive deficits.

Two and a half years ago, the Liberal Party campaigned on running small deficits during the first three years and balancing the budget in 2019 when the economy is strong. That was the Liberal promise. Where are we today? This government has created deficits that are two and a half times larger than promised, and worse yet, it has no clue how it is going to return to a balanced budget. Never in the history of Canada, in peacetime, has a government had a strong economy and no plan to achieve zero deficit. It is unacceptable because the deficit leads to debt that will be left to our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren to contend with.

I call on the President of the Treasury Board to tighten the purse strings. He is an experienced parliamentarian who has been serving this country for over 20 years in different capacities and on behalf of different parties. I appeal to his dignity and ask him to tighten the purse strings and especially to send Canadians a clear message that, just because his government has been overspending, does not mean that it will not balance the budget one of these days.

We think that the government should have a minimum plan to balance the budget. Will the government do so in 2019, as it promised? Will it do so in 2045, as the finance department's most recent report indicates will be the case if nothing changes? That would be absolutely ridiculous, but it would be even worse if the government had no plan at all for balancing the budget. Unfortunately, that is in fact the case. This government does not have a plan, and we very strongly condemn it for that. We are calling on the government to, at the very least, determine when it will balance the budget.

The government is turning its back on ordinary workers as it seeks to please its union leader partners and friends.

Ordinary federal employees have been suffering for almost two years now because of the Liberal government's bad decision to give the go-ahead to implement Phoenix. That is today's reality. We are gathered here in the House to talk about a bill that will make union bosses very happy. Meanwhile, unionized workers are still suffering as a result of the Phoenix problem. We have to be very careful here. Our thoughts are with all the heads of households and workers who have been hit hard by the Phoenix pay system problems. Enough can never be said and done to help these people. Canadian workers in my riding and the other 337 ridings have had their lives turned upside down by the Phoenix pay system.

A fact is a fact. The record shows that under the former government the ministers responsible put a kibosh on this project on two occasions. Both in July 2015 and September 2015, the ministers said that the Phoenix pay system should not be deployed because it was too risky. In January 2016, reports suggested not moving forward because the systems were not ready, it still had bugs, and most departmental financial directors recommended putting the project on hold. Unfortunately, on February 24 the government gave the go-ahead. In three weeks and a few hours, Phoenix will have been up and running for two years. A few weeks later, on April 26, the second phase of the Phoenix system was implemented. Nothing was done for 18 months even though alarms were sounding and red flags were raised all over the place. It took the Liberals months to admit that there was a problem.

It is sad that we are creating a bill that caters to union bosses instead of focusing on workers. Workers should be the priority, especially for the President of the Treasury Board, who claims that the government wants to be fair and equitable and says he wants to think positively and work together with the public service. However, today we are debating a bill introduced by the government in an attempt to pander to union bosses, instead of focusing first and foremost on the employees working in the public service.

For these reasons, we are going to vote against Bill C-62, because we feel it caters exclusively to union bosses. In fact, that was the same problem we had with Bill C-4, which attacked and demolished the fundamental principles of democracy and union transparency, principles that we and all workers hold dear. Bill C-62 is the logical but deplorable sequel to Bill C-4, which was tabled by the government almost two years ago now. We can therefore assure workers that we will always be on their side, not on the side of bosses and unions.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank the President of the Treasury Board for delivering part of his speech in French. The House can count on me to commend anyone who speaks in both official languages, especially those who may not have a natural ability to speak the other official language. I want to be clear. For me, the second official language is English, and I assume that French is the second official language for the President of the Treasury Board. My compliments end there.

I will have an opportunity to discuss the substance of the bill in greater detail. We see this bill as a logical extension of the Liberal approach, which involves thanking union leaders for their hearty and financial support during the last election campaign. This bill, much like Bill C-4, which I will come back to later, is more about pleasing union leaders than looking out for the concerns of workers. That is why we are disappointed by this bill.

Will the President of the Treasury Board just admit that this bill is a way of thanking the unions that gave them such strong support and were willing to hand over $5 million right before the election campaign, showing no respect for our election laws and no respect for the Conservative government, which had been duly elected by Canadians?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved that Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-62. The bill would restore fair public service labour laws that respect the collective bargaining process. It recognizes the important role of unions in protecting the rights of workers and in helping grow Canada's middle class.

Bill C-62 affirms the Canadian values of fairness and justice. It combines the government's previous bills C-5 and C-34. It makes no substantive changes to the earlier bills; it simply incorporates the adjustments necessary to combine proposals regarding sick leave, collective bargaining, and essential services for the federal public service into one piece of legislation. Merging these two bills into one is an efficient way to restore the equity and balance in our public service labour relations regime that existed before the legislative changes were introduced by the Harper Conservatives in 2013.

In part, Bill C-62 would repeal contentious sections of Bill C-59, which was a piece of legislation introduced, without consultation, through an omnibus budget bill by the previous government. Bill C-59 had given the government the authority to essentially ignore the public service labour relations act of the day and unilaterally modify the labour relations law that applies to and protects public servants. It would have allowed the government to unilaterally impose a new sick leave regime on public servants without negotiation or consultation.

On taking office, our government committed to not exercise the powers given to the government in Bill C-59, and now we are following through on our commitment by repealing the legislation itself.

Public servants and their representatives have made their position on the law very clear. They are upset and believe that the law violates their right to participate in a meaningful collective bargaining process.

We agree with the public service that this law brought in changes that were neither fair nor balanced. That is why we are acting to repeal them. Bill C-62 also repeals the most contentious changes made to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act in 2013. These include changes that allowed the employer to designate essential services unilaterally, to make conciliation with the right to strike the default process for resolving conflicts, and to impose new factors that arbitrators must consider when making a recommendation or award.

The amendments immediately created an antagonistic labour relations regime and made employer-bargaining agent relations worse. A number of unions even brought charter challenges related to these provisions. We have every reason to believe that such challenges would have been allowed by the courts.

In fact, in 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Saskatchewan's essential services legislation, which included very similar provisions to the 2013 federal legislation. However, the decision to repeal these regressive pieces of Conservative legislation is not just the legal thing to do. It is the right thing to do. We studied the situation closely. We met with public servants and the organizations who represent them. We recognized that the current situation was unsustainable and indefensible, both legally and morally. As a result, Bill C-62 reverses the changes to the act that gave the government the exclusive right to unilaterally determine which services are essential. Rather, the government will work with public sector bargaining agents to both identify and agree on essential service positions.

In addition, under the new legislation, bargaining agents will have the choice once again to determine which dispute resolution process they wish to use in the event of an impasse in bargaining. They will be able to select either arbitration or conciliation with the right to strike.

As well, public interest commissions and arbitration boards will be able to determine for themselves how much weight to give the many factors that come into play when making their decisions, factors like compensation that influence the terms and conditions of today's modern workforce.

This is how the system worked before the amendments of 2013. I look forward to getting back to a collaborative and fair approach once Bill C-62 receives royal assent.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will enable the government to keep an important promise it made to public service employees, their unions, and Canadians.

That was our promise to negotiate in good faith with bargaining agents to reach fair agreements that are fair and reasonable for federal employees and for Canadian taxpayers. The facts are clear in terms of the previous government's lack of commitment to bargaining in good faith.

When our government took office in 2015, all the collective bargaining agreements with public servants had expired. In fact, there were 27 collective bargaining agreements with 15 bargaining units. They had all expired under the previous government. Some of them had expired for almost four years. No public servants had collective bargaining agreements when we formed office. We made it clear that we would work with public servants. We would negotiate in good faith. After two years of hard work and good faith negotiations, we have achieved deals that now represent 91% of public servants. Thus, 91% of public servants now have collective bargaining agreements that were negotiated in good faith.

That success in concluding collective agreements was one achieved in partnership. From the public service we worked closely with people like Robyn Benson from PSAC and Debi Daviau from PIPSC. We worked together, not just on areas of economic increase but on other areas where we can improve the quality of the lives of public servants, and work with them to improve the outcomes for the Canadian public, the people we all serve, those of us on the elected level and the public service, the professional public service we have in Canada, which is one of the most effective anywhere in the world.

This act today, Bill C-62, continues our work toward restoring balanced labour laws that recognize the important role of our public service and the unions that represent them. In this system, the employer-employee relationship is more equal, with both parties within our approach having crucial roles in ensuring workers receive decent pay, are treated fairly, and work in safe, healthy work environments.

Restoring a culture of respect for and within the public service has been and is a priority of our government, a culture that encourages federal employees and the government to work together to fulfill our commitments to Canadians. Ultimately, we are all working together to improve the lives of citizens. The bottom line is that Bill C-62 will undo the measures that stacked the deck in favour of the employer and against the public servants and the bargaining agents representing them. It also highlights our ongoing commitment to support the Public Service of Canada.

As a society we must never roll back fundamental labour rights that unions have worked very hard to secure. Rather, we need to always ensure that workers can organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in safe environments.

Members may remember how in January 2016 the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced legislation, Bill C-4, to repeal two other unfair labour law bills from the previous government, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, and how we voted to support that legislation in the autumn of 2016. Those two bills by the former government introduced a number of contentious measures related to the financial disclosure process of unions and their certification.

Bill C-4, which received royal assent, reversed those provisions that would have made it harder for unions to be certified and easier for them to be decertified. It also amended the Income Tax Act to remove the onerous and redundant requirement that labour organizations and labour trusts provide specific information annually to the Minister of National Revenue. This included information on the non-labour activities, which would then have been made available to the public. We already had laws in place prior to that, which ensured unions are, in fact, financially transparent and accountable to members.

What is more, the contentious measures this legislation introduced were not formulated in accordance with the principles of respectful consultation. This includes, in terms of consultation, the traditional tripartite consultation process among the employer, unions, and governments normally used whenever we consider reforming labour relations. Therefore, the laws introduced by the previous government were deeply flawed and we, quite rightly, moved to repeal them.

My point is that the bill we are considering today is only the latest in a series of actions that demonstrate the government's commitment to bargaining in good faith with labour leaders and public service bargaining agents. This is of tremendous importance, not only to the welfare of our public service employees but to Canadian citizens, whom we all work to serve. Labour unions play an important role in protecting the rights of workers and in growing the middle class. We respect them and the people they represent.

It is public service employees who administer Canada's income support programs, such as the old age security benefit, for instance, that provides seniors with an important source of income. They are the RCMP and the public servants who helped thousands of asylum seekers who came to Canada earlier this year, as an example. They are the people who help fellow citizens displaced by wildfires. They are the public servants who serve Canadians day in, day out, and they come from all walks of life. They offer an incredible range of expertise and experience that the government draws on to ensure the delivery of services to people across Canada, and, in fact, around the globe.

We need our public service employees to be respected for the great work they do. More than that, we also want young people graduating from our colleges and universities to see the public service as not just a great place to build a career but a great place to build a country. I often speak to young people who are interested in entering the public service. Some of them, for instance, are involved in modern digital work and what I explain to them when they are looking at their options is that we cannot give them the stock options that they may receive with a tech start-up, but we can give them something bigger and that is an opportunity to paint on a larger canvas and improve the lives of Canadians. I would encourage all young people to consider spending at least part of their lives in public service, either within the professional public service or at the political level. The opportunity to improve the lives of our fellow citizens is a rare and important one.

To do that, we need to make some fundamental changes to the public service. We need the public service to be less hierarchical. We need to make it easier for people with ideas and ambition to come into the public service to make a difference, and potentially go back out after tackling some specific projects. There is a lot of work we need to do, but I continue to believe that the public service, either at the professional level within the Public Service of Canada or at the political level, remains one of the best ways one can actually improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

Throughout our history, our public service unions and, broadly, our labour unions have been a force of positive change. They have fought to secure the benefits that Canadian workers now take for granted, whether it is a minimum wage or a five-day workweek, parental leave or health and safety regulations. When labour relations are balanced and fair, Canadian workers benefit, but the country does as a whole as well. In fact, the economy does as a whole.

Unions and employers must be on an equal footing when it comes to negotiating wages and other important issues and benefits that come up in the modern workplace. In the federal public sector, federal employees won the right to collective bargaining in 1967. At the time, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson said in Parliament that this right is “rooted in the concept of equity and equality between the government as employer and organizations representing its employees”.

We are continuing to fight for this right today. The bill being considered today is strong proof of that principle and reflects that. It is strong proof of our commitment to restore a culture of respect for and within the public service. It is proof of the faith we have in Canadians and the positive and uniting values that hold our country together.

I am proud of the work we are doing as a government, and much of the work we are doing as a Parliament in the discussion of these issues, and also of the restoration of positive working relations with the labour unions, the labour movement, and the federal public service. I want to thank all hon. members of the House who have supported and continue to support our efforts to restore fairer public service labour laws.

As parliamentarians, our shared challenge is to continue to work in the spirit of respect and engagement. All of us can do this by supporting Bill C-62. It would go a long way toward recognizing the important role of our federal public service and the unions, the bargaining agents who represent them and protect their rights. It is the right way to show our support for our professional and exceptional public service employees and to recognize the important work they do every day on behalf of all of us in improving the lives of our citizens.

An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle, a riding whose name will change in due time. I want to reassure her straight off that the official opposition fully agrees with the substance of the bill and that we will be supporting the measure.

As my hon. colleague has shown, there is indeed a major anomaly in the name of the riding, which refers to Lacolle, a place that is not even located in the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, but rather in that of Saint-Jean.

On a related note, the crossing at the American border is still known as Lacolle, even though that refers to the municipality of Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle. I thank my collague for that important clarification. In my own riding, in Quebec City, the Jean Lesage international airport is often referred to as L'Ancienne-Lorette airport, and yet, it is not located in L'Ancienne-Lorette, but rather in Quebec, but it still goes by its old name, even though L'Ancienne-Lorette is across the street. Much to my disappointment, I do not represent the Quebec City airport. It is a shame because aviation is a passion of mine, as I have often mentioned to the Minister of Transport. The airport and surrounding area are represented by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, whom I value and respect.

We therefore agree with the change and appreciate the member's clarifications. She did a great job giving us the history of her riding and its parishes and towns and explaining the importance that should rightly be placed on having accurate names. I have two simple questions for my colleague regarding minor concerns.

First of all, I have always found it a little strange, to put it politely, that the names of federal ridings are so long. As I learned from the member, they cannot be more than 50 characters, but that seems very long to me. I always have a hard time remembering the name of the riding of my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, which is not too far from my riding. Federal riding names can go on forever. Look at my colleague from Foothills. It is one word. It is simple, impossible to mess up. Louis-Saint-Laurent is the name of a former prime minister, so people do not mess that up either. However, when ridings have four or five names stuck together, even if it is under 50 characters, I still think that is too long.

I mention this because the member is proposing that her riding be renamed Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville. If this is what the people want, I have no problem with it, and I support the member, since she took the time to listen to the people. However, I was quite surprised to see that they wanted to change a relatively short name to a rather longer name. I recognize that this is perfectly legitimate, historically speaking.

Furthermore, I am just as surprised as my colleague from Lethbridge and the NDP member that this member chose to raise this important issue, which we do support, in a private member's bill, when if she had just waited a bit, she could have included it in the omnibus bill that the minister will be introducing soon.

For the information of those watching and listening, every 10 years, the electoral map and the riding names are reviewed. In a so-called omnibus bill, which we have no problem with, the government includes amendments proposed by members. Members can be for or against them. It is a legitimate debate.

It is unfortunate that my colleague instead chose to go out on her own by introducing a private member's bill, instead of joining the 337 other members of Parliament who are going to participate in good faith in the government's process, which has the support of parliamentarians.

We all recognize and will fight for the right of the member to table that kind of bill. However, I will express my surprise, because she should have used another way to achieve exactly the same goals. We do support the goals, and we recognize that the population will too. That is fantastic and we do support it 100%. However, we are a bit surprised that she tabled a a private member's bill.

For us, a private member's bill is an important bill. A private member's bill is a front door bill. Why do I say that? It is because less than two years ago in the House, which my colleague from Foothills will remember, there was a strong debate about Bill C-4, introduced by the government, which was to kill two private members' bills tabled in the previous Parliament. They were Bill C-525 about democracy and unions, and Bill C-377 about transparency and unions. Those bills were tabled by Conservative members, but not the government.

For us, those private members' bills were front door bills. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary for the prime minister said many times in the House that the Conservative government used back door bills to table those pieces of legislation. What an insult. All members in this House are front door members. All bills tabled in this House are front door bills. No one here is a back door member, and no one here tables back door bills, contrary to what the member for Winnipeg North said so many times less than two years ago.

I am going to repeat what I just said. I want to make it clear that for us, all bills are front-door bills, regardless of whether they are private members' bills or government bills, legislative bills or money bills.

Less than two years ago, the member for Winnipeg North, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, no less, made a huge deal out of things and told the House that the Conservative government had used backdoor bills. These were private members' bills. These bills were about union democracy and union transparency. Sadly, they were killed off by Bill C-4, a bill tabled, debated, and passed by the Liberal government.

To be clear for the hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle, and I am sorry to refer to her with that title, but I know it will be over in less than two years, Conservatives support the will of the people 100%. We appreciate the hard work that has been done by the member, the fact that she listened to her constituents, and did her homework. That is fantastic. We are just a little surprised by how many members will have new titles, but if that is the will of the people, we will recognize and respect it. We are also a little surprised that instead of getting on the train, and I do not know if that is the right expression in English.

Instead of jumping on the omnibus bill bandwagon, the member decided to go a different route.

Instead of going with an omnibus bill, which we recognize she has the right to do, she decided to go with a private member's bill, while so many other issues could have been addressed as opposed to changing the name of a riding. This could have been achieved with an omnibus bill.

I want to reiterate that we agree with Bill C-377.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

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—Chapter No. 9.

Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act—Chapter No. 10.

Bill S-233, An Act to amend the Customs Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (presentation and reporting requirements)—Chapter No. 11.

Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act—Chapter No. 12.

Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code—Chapter No. 13.

Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act—Chapter No. 14.

Labour Relations

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for his work on behalf of Canadian unions. This week was a great week for Canadian labour and Canadian workers.

Yesterday, the Senate passed Bill C-4, which is an act that repeals two Conservative bills that were both egregious, and deliberate attacks on organized labour. As well, our minister ratified ILO Convention 98, which is an act that guarantees workers' right to organize and bargain collectively. This government ran on a platform of fair and balanced labour laws, and we will deliver that to Canadian workers.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Privy Council Office

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I heard the opening comments from my colleague across the way about how great the new Senate process has been for the Liberals. Then I thought to myself that it was interesting, because the Prime Minister is going to be forced to prorogue at some point this summer, because the so-called independent senators are gathering as a united party of united independents in the Senate, which means that they are going to have their own agenda. They are seeking committee chairmanships and committee placements. The only way those things can actually be done in the current system is through prorogation.

We have had numerous pieces of legislation come back to this House that the government has actually ignored. The government is hailing its new appointment process and is putting it out there as a spectacle for Canadians to buy. However, the government is not listening to any of the advice the senators have sent.

We are not sure if Bill C-4 is going to come back to the House a third time or if the Senate is actually going to pass it or accept the recommendations from the House. We now know that a budget bill, a confidence bill, has been split in the Senate. I have been here a long time, and I have never seen anything like this before.

The Liberal government on the other side is all about announcements, fuzzy good feelings, photo ops, and headlines, with no thought of the long-term consequences of the actions it is taking.

I would like my hon. colleague to stand up and say whether he and the rest of his colleagues will be accepting the amendments that come from the Senate on future legislation. Otherwise, the whole process is nothing more than a sham.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened very intently to my colleague's speech. My question for him in his capacity as a minister is not so much with respect to his portfolio but about the infinite wisdom of his leader, the Prime Minister, who has empowered the Senate, which has basically been amending numerous pieces of legislation such as Bill C-4 and other pieces of legislation and sending them back to the House, after which the government has subsequently ignored the wishes of the Senate.

What I want to know from the minister is this: what is he prepared to do and what is he prepared to say at the cabinet table when the Senate parses this bill and does not pass all of this budget implementation bill?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, anyone watching the debate at home would see that the parliamentary secretary laid out a very logical and truthful analogy of how this place has been running to date.

When I wake up in the morning, I think to myself, “What can I do today to help the Conservatives and the NDP?” I get seized with that question.

I just want to share with the new members that this does not play well back home. We had an opportunity to bring Bill C-4 forward in the House, but the NDP stood up and split the vote on whether the member should be now heard. We know that the CLC conference was going on in Toronto, and the NDP members were seen as being part and party to delaying Bill C-4 coming to the House. It is very important to organized labour, and they were taken to the woodshed.

I would like to ask the member—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my contribution to this debate by reiterating what we have heard from a few members. I do not think the issue is that members mind sitting longer to accomplish important work. We were sent here to do that work. If there are things that need to get passed and we feel they are of value to Canadians, we are willing to do the work to get it passed. The issue is that sitting longer does come with real consequences both in terms of costs to the House by not just having MPs here, but all the staff that make debate in this place possible and that support this work. Having them come in to work overtime has a real cost. There is a productivity cost that may be incurred for some of us who stay up past midnight and then get up for eight o'clock meetings that will not get pushed back. That is fine, and it can be a reasonable choice to make. Sometimes we just have to get things done, which means staying later. Putting in some overtime is not a problem. However, the question is why we are in a situation that we have to do that.

It is important to understand how we got here. I do not think anyone would disagree with the claim that this is not ideally how one would run things around here. To ask MPs, or staff on the Hill, on relatively short notice, to stay until midnight, and then be back again every morning is not the ideal way to run the House of Commons. That is why it is exceptional and not usually done. I have not heard anyone today suggest it should.

Part of how we got here is simply. The government has been inept for a number of months. That ineptitude manifested itself when the government brought what it called a discussion paper to change the Standing Orders. It then, at the procedure and House affairs committee, where that would properly be dealt with before coming to this place, decided to move to close down that conversation. The opposition parties rightly reacted for a number of reasons. One was that it did not seem to be a good faith discussion when the government had said it wanted to have that and then moved to close it down. Therefore, it did not feel like the government was acting in good faith on that. However, the opposition members also rightly objected because all they were asking for, in order to embark on that conversation in good faith, was that the government would agree in advance to seek all-party agreement before moving ahead with changes to the Standing Orders. This was not some cockamamie scheme that the opposition parties of this Parliament came up with. It is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, which has worked to bring in significant parliamentary reform.

I grew up hearing stories of the McGrath committee at the dinner table. My father sat on that committee. It brought forth changes for the Speaker to be elected by secret ballot. That was a huge change. It also made private members' business votable, not in the way it is currently. It was the beginning of ensuring that at least some private members' business would be voted on.

These were just some of the substantial reforms that were made in the House via all-party agreement. Therefore, the idea that somehow we would never get all-party agreement, and it was just a pipe dream, is completely false. There are ample examples of that. The hon. official opposition House leader has outlined a number more, in fact, some dating back to the 14th century in Britain. Certainly, there are a number of cases where we have seen good reform come out of all-party work.

Therefore, the opposition said it did not think it acceptable for a government to unilaterally change the rules of this place. This place is meant to serve Canadians, not the government, and the interests of the government are not always the same as the interests of Canadians. Not wanting to depart too much from debate on the motion, the creation of the infrastructure bank is a good example of where the interests of the government do not align with the interests of Canadians. However, I will not get into that.

The filibuster that happened and some the time that was spent in the House, and there was a lot, was spent rightly. People were standing up to a government that thought Parliament was here to simply do whatever it wanted. We have seen that in Winnipeg with the call for an inquiry into the building of the new police headquarters. Because that project got out of hand and went way over budget, there are questions about whether the CAO of the city and the former mayor were involved or accepting money. Those questions are out there, and people are asking for an investigation. What people are rightly asking is whose hand was on the wheel, who was overseeing this and if it was not the job of backbenchers and opposition politicians to provide appropriate scrutiny.

That is what these tools of Parliament allow us to do. Standing up for those tools is part of that job. The “just trust us” attitude of the government is not sufficient. The government is not only saying “just trust us, we are doing a good job”, but it is talking about changing the rules of Parliament so we have no choice but to just trust it.

If the proposals in the discussion paper did not do that automatically, that was certainly the thrust and direction of them. The Liberals' way of doing it would set the principle and the precedent that a majority government could unilaterally change the rules of the House.

It is not our job to just trust the government. It is not our job to just help the government get legislation through the House. It is the government's job to get legislation through the House. By refusing to honour a long-standing parliamentary tradition of seeking all-party consensus, the government was at the root of the delay that happened in the House. As a result, it could not get its legislative agenda through. It is not even a very big legislative agenda, and that speaks to the magnitude of the Liberals failure as a government to work collaboratively with opposition parties.

As my colleague rightly pointed out, that was something the Liberals committed to doing. They made it a cornerstone of what they wanted to do. They said they wanted to work collaboratively and take the work of committees seriously.

How is the government taking the work of committees seriously when it presents a discussion paper on changes to the Standing Orders then moves to shut down the debate? How was it a sign of respect for the work of committees when the special committee on electoral reform came out with a proposal on how to advance the government's own election commitment? Even in the face of challenge and even though we said that we on this side of the House disagreed substantially on how we should or should not change our electoral system but nevertheless here was a path forward that we we could at least agree on, a general outline of what the process would look like, the government threw it back.

When we hear the government House leader today say that the government wants committees to do their great work and it wants more debate in the House, as if somehow we are to believe that this is really the motivation of the government, it is a challenge. It is a challenge on this side to take the Liberals at their word on those things because of what happened at PROC, because of what happened with Motion No. 6, because of what happened on democratic reform, and now with what is happening with this motion.

The government, essentially after botching its job, which is to guide legislation through the House and to work with other parties to do that, is now asking its backbench to make up for the mistakes, instead of looking at its cabinet, asking what has gone wrong, why has it been unable to advance its legislation through the House and what is that saying about the quality of the government's leadership.

These are questions the Liberals should be asking instead of asking all of us to put in extra time at the last minute to help them get through an agenda that they say is going to be positive for Canadians. That is fine. I do not believe that for a minute. Getting Bill C-44 through the House is not an important priority.

I would love to see the committee get to work on the infrastructure bank. When we proposed to separate that from the omnibus bill, the Liberals said no. They then had the audacity to stand here and say that they valued the work of parliamentarians and committees. Why not let a committee study that? The government House leader even went so far as to say that the government had the power to call witnesses and do an in-depth study. That was our point about the infrastructure bank, and the Liberals shut it down. For the Liberals to ask us to take their word that this is being done in good faith is a little much.

There are other aspects of this that would be useful to get into, but we are pushing up against the clock, not the least of which is the reforms that the Prime Minister has made within the Senate.

We have a chamber full of unelected people who are accountable to no one and it is sending bills like Bill C-4 back to the House. This is after two-thirds of Canadians voted for parties that said they wanted to see the anti-labour legislation of the last Parliament repealed. People who are accountable to no one have sent the bill back and have refused to pass it.

That has to get done. It should have been done a long time ago. It speaks volumes to the ineptitude of the Liberal Party that it has not already been done. It is a straight up repeal. It was a matter of getting it through the House and then getting it through the Senate. The Liberals failed to do that in a timely way. It is just an indication of how broken the Liberals are as a government that they cannot get such a fundamental piece of legislation passed. Granted it does not enjoy consensus because there is one party in th House that does not support legislation, but every other party in the House does, even the unofficial parties.

Four out of the five parties that won seats in the last election support the legislation, and the government still cannot get it passed. It does not even do anything new. It just restores labour law to what it was in 2012.

I will defer to questions and answers.

Canada Labour Code

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendments tabled by the Senate to Bill C-4 now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to rise and talk yet again about labour relations. Since we have been in government, we have seen a focus on Canada's middle class, and those aspiring to be a part of the middle class. A big part of that is our economy, making sure that we are looking at ways in which we can expand the economy. We understand and appreciate that a healthy middle class, and a growing middle class is healthy for Canada's economy. That is one of the ways in which we expand upon it.

Why do I start on that point? It is because unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize that one of the ways in which we can further advance our economy is by encouraging harmony between management and employees. When we look at what Bill C-4 is all about, it is one of the earliest pieces of legislation we introduced as government. It rectified some bad legislation that the former Stephen Harper government had brought to the House of Commons.

My colleague, who was the critic for labour at the time, on several occasions spoke in the House and defended how important it was that we have a proper balance in labour relations. It is something which the former Conservative government members still have not learned. They are still out of touch with what Canadians want to see. We see that demonstrated on issues such as this. Once again, we have the Conservative Party that is out of touch with what Canadians want. We believe that Canadians want to have a balanced approach. If we are successful doing that, we will be contributing to more economic growth in our country, and that is something we all want to see.

I listened to the two Conservative questions, and members wanted to focus their attention on process. On the issue of time allocation, my colleague had it right. The Harper government used it in excess of 100 times, and Conservatives now want to focus some attention on that issue. It is interesting to see that it is not just the government that has recognized that the Conservative Party does not want to pass this legislation. If it were up to the Conservative Party, this legislation would never see the light of day. Conservatives use excuses of the Senate that the same applied during second and third reading. If we did not use time allocation, the Conservative Party would continue to fill the spaces with the idea of never seeing this legislation pass.

To the credit of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the Green Party, they recognized that. It is rare to see opposition parties get behind and support time allocation. That should speak volumes in terms of why this is good solid legislation, because we have a majority that goes beyond one political party in favour of time allocation on this piece of legislation. I thank my New Democratic colleagues and the leader of the Green Party in recognizing that Bill C-4 is a good piece of legislation. It is something which we talked about in the last election. To restore more positive labour relations was a part of our election platform, and it has been a long time coming as we tried to get it through. Finally, we are starting to see that the will of the House of Commons, which goes beyond just the government party, is to see this legislation ultimately receive royal assent.

We look forward to restoring, and sending the message that labour relations are important to this government. We recognize the valuable contributions that unions have provided in the past, today, and well into the future. As a government we recognize that, and we want to do what we can. In playing our important role, by passing legislation of this nature, it will send a strong message. We thank members across the way who are supporting the bill, and would encourage the Conservative Party to get onside, do the right thing, and support Canada's middle class.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North to give him an opportunity to get a few words on the record. I am sure everybody is looking to forward that.

I am happy to rise today to speak on the Senate amendments to Bill C-4, but first I want to say that I am very pleased that the Senate chose to accept to repeal Bill C-377 in its entirety. I will focus my comments today on the amendments that relate specifically to the repeal of Bill C-525, which deals with the fundamental right of workers to organize themselves into a union.

Everyone, including labour, employers, and government, wants a fair and legitimate certification process that would do two things. First, it would allow workers to make a free and informed decision about whether they want to join a union or not; second, it would be created through a fair and balanced tripartite consensus process that is based on fact, not ideology, and in which the changes to be made would not be imposed on the stakeholders.

Unfortunately, the lack of evidence for the need for Bill C-525 and the united opposition to the process it imposed on labour relations systems made Bill C-525 unsuitable legislation for changing a fundamental aspect of the Canada Labour Code. That is why I oppose the Senate amendments and would respectfully ask members of this House to do the same.

Let me share with the House the reasons for my opposition.

My opposition is first to the process through which Bill C-525 was introduced and passed. I know proponents of the bill say the process is unimportant and that the only thing that matters is the secret ballot. It is simply a case of “the ends justify the means” approach that we saw with the previous government.

This approach not only shows a complete lack of knowledge about good labour relations but also a total disrespect to the parties involved, the employers, labour practitioners, and regulators who have the responsibility to enforce a law that was developed through a poisoned process. Labour law systems are very complex, and the ones that work well are based on a delicate balance between the interests of labour and management that must be respected if and when reforms are to be made.

The stakeholders in the federal labour sector long ago developed a proven process to amend federal labour legislation. It is known as the tripartite process. As a result, there exists a delicate balance that serves fairly the interests of employers, unions, workers, and the Canadian economy.

The last major consultative review of part one of the Canada Labour Code occurred in 1995, and the subsequent report, entitled “Seeking a balance” was authored by the well-respected labour-neutral Andrew Sims.

Mr. Sims said that if labour laws are to be changed, it should be done because there is a demonstrated need due to the legislation no longer working or serving the public's interest, and it should be done on a consensus basis. Based on the testimony in the House of Commons and the testimony the committee heard from the major employer and employee groups as well as the evidence from the Canada Industrial Relations Board, Bill C-525 failed to meet that standard.

Beyond the process, let us talk about the evidence, or the lack thereof, for Bill C-525. The sponsor of the bill, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, had justified the necessity for his bill by saying:

...when we see the mountain of complaints that end up at the labour relations board, it is concerning to me.

I think it would be concerning to everyone if in fact there was indeed a case such as this. Fortunately, it is simply not true. According to Canada Industrial Relations Board, there have been only two founded certification complaints against unions in 4,000 decisions rendered in the prior 10 years before Bill C-525 was passed. In fact, there were more founded complaints against employers than against unions.

A past chairperson of the CIRB, Elizabeth MacPherson, stated in committee testimony, “It's not a huge problem.” There was no evidence ever given to show that the federal card check system was not working in the best interests of workers in either its administrative effectiveness or in its abuse by unions to coerce workers to unionize. What the evidence shows is that employer interference and, more so, employee fear of employer interference is a real phenomenon and is the reason a mandatory vote system produces fewer union certifications.

Sara Slinn was referred to earlier in a previous speech. She testified at the Senate committee during the study of Bill C-525. She is a very well-respected expert on the issue. She said:

In sum, the research evidence shows that there is no support for the notion that votes are necessarily a superior mechanism to cards for determining union representation. Nor does it support the notion that union intimidation or pressure is a substantial phenomenon in certification. What it does demonstrate is that employer interference and, more so, employee fear of employer interference is a real phenomenon. It's effective, and it's more effective under votes than card-based mechanisms.

What is interesting to note is that the labour program under the previous government actually competed a study on the issue of card check versus mandatory voting at the same time Bill C-525 was being debated. That study concluded that:

...the use of [a mandatory vote] regime has been an important factor in the decline in union density in the Canadian business sector.

Unfortunately, the previous government buried that study, and it was only released when we took over the reins of government. It is a fair question to ask why that report was not released. I believe it was not made public because the report's conclusion supports the independent research that shows the answers to the critical question of why union density decreases under mandatory vote versus card check. The evidence shows it is not because workers do not really want to unionize but because there is a real or perceived threat.

Proponents of the secret ballot would have us believe that ideology trumps this evidence, that the secret ballot is the only factor necessary to ensure a democratic outcome. The member for Carleton quipped during his speech that the minister “used rhetoric to attack the secret ballot, which would make any third-world, tin-pot dictators proud.” That is right in Hansard too. It is he who would make tin-pot dictators proud by claiming the only factor necessary to prove that democracy has been served is solely the use of a secret ballot. The third-world tin-pot dictators that the member speaks of, like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe or Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, have all continued to remain elected through a system that uses a secret ballot. In fact, there are many countries around the world that conduct secret-ballot elections that many members in the chamber, perhaps all, would agree are not true democracies.

My point is that I do not think we can look at one factor in isolation to judge how effective and democratic a system is, including one that governs union certification. Instead, we must look at all factors in total that influence the process to determine how best to move forward.

Our government believes in a fair and democratic certification program, one that is based on evidence, not ideology or rhetoric, and is agreed upon through a respected tripartite process in the federal jurisdiction. We believe the card check certification is that system.

When our party ran for election, we promised to repeal these laws. We remain strongly committed to supporting the rights of workers. In order for workers and employers, society, and the economy to prosper, we need fair and balanced labour legislation. Bill C-4, as it was originally passed by 204 members in this House, would achieve that goal. I ask members to oppose the Senate amendments and restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

Resuming Debate

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on one theme from my colleague's speech about the other place and the time it has taken to get this bill shuttled through.

There is a couple of ways one could interpret the story of the bill.

The one that is the most charitable to the Liberals, and the story they would tell, is that they are the victims of their own success. They made an independent Senate and now that Senate does not always behave as it should. In this case it has rejected the will of Canadian voters, who overwhelmingly supported parties that thought the anti-labour legislation of the Harper era should be repealed, and that took time. They will hopefully come up with a plan to get it through the second time, although it is not clear what the plan is and how long it will take.

The other interpretation suggested by some is that a number of important labour reforms have not happened. Some have been proposed, like in Bill C-34, I believe it is. We have not seen anything about the fair wages act coming back. We have not seen any full pay equity legislation. One wonders maybe if the government is not a victim of its own success, but that having Bill C-4 stay in the system is a convenient excuse to not be pursuing these other important labour reforms.

I wonder if the member wants to help us parse those various interpretations of what is going on.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the government's motion to disagree with the amendment by the Senate to Bill C-4. In fact, I am saddened to have to speak to this bill again.

Bill C-4 was passed by this House, with no amendments, and sent to the other place, where it was adopted at second reading and where it also went through the committee process, again with no amendments being tabled or adopted.

However, at third reading, certain members of the other House proposed amendments. Of course, as parliamentarians, it is certainly appropriate to study legislation before either place and to propose amendments that would improve or clarify the bill at hand. In this instance, the amendments proposed served to completely gut the bill. Senator Tannas' amendment would have had Bill C-525, from the previous government, reinstated. Senator Dagenais' amendment would have done the same with the previous government's Bill C-377. The latter was subsequently withdrawn, so I will speak to the remaining amendment.

The card check system for union certification seems to be a preoccupation of the Conservative members in this House and in the other place. One could put it down to ideology, I suppose, or consternation that something their party, their government, put in place while in government is being dismantled. That is understandable.

What is less understandable is the fact that the Conservatives continue to try to resurrect a law that has been judged by non-partisan experts to be unfair and unnecessary. Andrew Sims, vice-chair of the 1996 task force to review the Canada Labour Code, said:

...the two bills that are repealed by Bill C-4....both had the air of one side seeking political intervention for more ideological, economic, or relationship reasons, and they have corroded the view that legislative reform at the federal sector is based on the tripartite model.

At committee we heard testimony from respected experts, both employer and employee stakeholders and academics, that the previous government's Bill C-525 was a law that was enacted on the false premise that it was indeed the very bedrock of democracy, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Conservatives like to compare the union certification process to elections, but testimony and evidence from expert after expert debunked this claim. The analogy, simply put, is a false one.

Here is what Prof. Sara Slinn, associate professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, at York University, had to say about the previous government's Bill C-525:

...there is a faulty political election analogy at work here. Mandatory vote supporters commonly rely on a political election analogy founded on the view that certification votes are analogous to political campaigns and elections. The attraction of this argument is understandable, appealing as it does to ideas of free speech and informed choice and workplace democracy, but it's a false analogy.

The nature of union representation is not analogous to government power or political representation, and as a result, the nature of decision-making in a union vote is not analogous to that in a political election. First, the nature of the decision is different. Certification doesn't transform the employment relationship. It simply introduces the union as the employee's agent for the limited purpose of bargaining and administering any collective agreement that the union may be able to negotiate. The employer's overriding economic authority over employees continues in any event.

Secondly, there is no non-representation outcome possible in the political context. In political elections citizens vote between two or more possible representatives. There is no option to be unrepresented, so...if union representation elections were to be analogous to political elections, then it would be a vote among different collective employer representatives with no option for non-representation. That's simply not the system that we have anywhere in Canada.

It seems appropriate for me to once again refer to the testimony of Prof. Slinn, who also addressed the issue of the card check versus secret ballot votes for union certification.

...in terms of cards being a reliable measure of employee support, it's often contended that votes more accurately indicate employees' desire for union representation than cards, suggesting that card-based certification fosters union misconduct to compel employees to sign cards. Although this is possible, there is no evidence, either in academic studies or in the case law from jurisdictions that use this procedure, that it is a significant or a widespread problem. Anecdote isn't evidence, and certainly it shouldn't be a compelling basis for legislative change in the face of a lot of academic research finding that mandatory vote systems have negative effects on labour relations and that employer interference in certification is indeed a significant and widespread problem.

My Conservative colleagues want to seriously curtail, I believe, the ability of Canadians to join unions.

Whenever there has been adversity suffered by working people or unfair or unsafe working conditions, unions have been there to advocate for fairness and for safer and more humane working conditions. Unions have been at the forefront of raising awareness and fighting for issues that affect everyone, from the dangers of asbestos in the workplace to the plight of the next generation of workers facing a future of temporary and precarious work.

I am proud to recognize the efforts of the labour movement in Canada in educating Canadians about the scourge of asbestos. I know that all Canadians look forward to the day when asbestos is finally banned in Canada.

As we mark the 25th anniversary of the Westray mine disaster, when 26 miners were killed, I am also extremely proud of the tireless efforts of the United Steelworkers, whose advocacy on behalf of Westray families resulted in the Westray law. We just have to make sure that all levels of government enforce this law.

Unions and their members have long been the proverbial canaries in the coal mine, raising the alarm on many important issues, and any attempt by the Conservatives, whether in the House or in the other place, to make it harder for Canadians to join unions begs the question why. Why the attack on the constitutional right of working men and women to organize themselves in joining unions?

Canadians have the right of freedom of association, and the card check system has served Canadian workers and Canadian workplaces well for decades. The previous government's Bill C-525 was just a thinly veiled attempt, based on dubious anecdotal examples, to tip the balance to the side of the employer, and employers already have the upper hand in most instances.

Rather than refute, once again, the many problems with Bill C-525, allow me to ask my Conservative colleagues what their motivation was in bringing in such an obviously anti-union, anti-worker, and therefore, in my opinion, anti-democratic law?

To quote Hassan Yussuff, from the Canadian Labour Congress:

Why would an employer care if the workers want to join the union? If it's their free democratic and constitutional right in this country, why would employers want to interfere in it other than the fact that if you do have a vote, it gives the employer time to use all kinds of tactics during the time the vote has been ordered? I could list some of the companies that clearly said they were going to close the facility, or cut people's salaries, or lay people off. Of course, ultimately it changed the workers' ability to truly exercise their free choice.

There is no reason to make it harder to join a union other than to tilt the playing field unfairly toward employers.

As I mentioned earlier, it gives me no pleasure to stand here today to speak to Bill C-4 again. In September 2016, I stated in the House my hope that Bill C-4 would receive swift passage so that the risks and restrictions brought about by the previous government's Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 would cease to exist. However, here we are in May 2017, in a déjà vu situation. Just as the previous government's Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were enacted by the Conservatives in a less than straightforward fashion, as part of an omnibus bill through a private member's bill process, as opposed to being introduced and debated as government bills, so too have the Conservatives in the Senate engaged in what I believe are questionable tactics.

Bill C-4 had already been adopted at second reading in the Senate, studied at committee with no resulting amendments, and yet Conservative senators decided to break parliamentary tradition and propose amendments at third reading. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia:

The Senate has not vetoed a bill from the Commons since 1939. The Senate now very rarely makes amendments of principle. The amendments it does make to bills now are almost always related to drafting—to clarify, simplify and tidy proposed legislation.

The amendments proposed by the hon. senators Tannas and Dagenais were most definitely not to clarify, simplify, and tidy, but rather were designed to torpedo the contents of the entire bill. While the motives of the aforementioned senators are very clear, it remains a mystery as to why and how the government seemed unable to shepherd its own bill through the upper chamber.

Back in September when Bill C-4 was first debated, I congratulated the government on making good on one of its election promises. It would seem that my congratulations were a bit premature. I hope the government will take its responsibilities seriously and work diligently to ensure that it keeps this particular promise to Canadians to restore some balance to the collective bargaining process and to eliminate the onerous and unnecessary financial reporting requirements that the previous government imposed on unions.

I had also enumerated for the government the many ways that we as lawmakers could make life better for Canadians. Last fall, at the one year anniversary of the election, I expressed hope that the new government that had promised equality for women, fairness for indigenous people, and sunny ways for all would work closely with all members in this House, as well as unions and civil society, to bring about better jobs and a more secure future for all Canadians. I am disappointed that seven months later, one of the government's very first pieces of legislation has yet to be passed. How much longer do workers have to wait?

The NDP said that Bill C-4 was a good first step, but we reminded the government that there is still much work to be done. The previous government's omnibus bill, Bill C-4, had decimated the health and safety provisions for public sector workers. We need to restore these important safeguards for the people who deliver our essential public services.

As part of the promised labour policy reform, we asked the government to bring in legislation to update and modernize the Canada Labour Code. As we know, sections of the code that deal with workplace harassment, hours of work, overtime pay, and vacation entitlements are about 60 years out of date. It is time we modernized the code to reflect the reality of today's labour market. We have yet to hear from the government about this.

Given the rise in precarious and involuntary part-time employment, will the Liberals work with unions to ensure that part-time, temporary and self-employed workers have the right to the same workplace and labour protections as other Canadians? These workers are faced with a host of added challenges that include eligibility for EI benefits, and erratic hours that create challenges in pursuing an education, arranging child care, and qualifying for a mortgage.

When will the government commit to reinstating a fair minimum wage for workers in federally regulated sectors? Some provinces and municipalities are already acknowledging that a living wage will make a huge difference in making life more affordable. Will the government step up and lead the way?

We heard just the other day in this House how the government will be pursuing a national poverty reduction strategy. A critical element of a poverty reduction strategy, I would say, and I think most people would agree, is a federal minimum wage. As I have said before, another sad fact is the disproportionate number of workers who would be helped by a federal minimum wage are women and young people. We cannot afford not to act.

Through a combination of policy and propaganda, the previous government started to dismantle the system of protections put in place by decades of advocacy by labour organizations and unions. Their right-wing agenda has generated policies that have hurt the environment, social services, and all workers, but especially persons of colour, indigenous communities, women, the poor, and other marginalized groups.

It is way past time for the federal government to bring in stand-alone pay equity legislation. We have studied this issue and consulted, and the evidence is clear and undeniable. Two committee reports have called for action, yet the government is making women wait. It is unconscionable.

All these are contributing factors to greater income inequality. If the government is truly sincere about helping the middle class, then it must immediately address all of these issues. If the government cannot manage to stickhandle its own bill through the legislative process, what hope do we have that these pressing issues will ever get the attention they deserve? Affordable child care, pay equity, decent accessible housing, and a living wage are all measures that would help Canadians from all walks of life.

It is not enough to state that one is a feminist. It is not enough to stand beside union men and women during the election and raise one's fist in solidarity. These are just words and gestures. We must follow that talk, that show of support, with actions, with leadership, with the hard work of making hard decisions.

It is time to stop the rhetoric of gender lenses, gender-based analysis, of consultation, discussion, of a whole-of-government approach. It is time to act. It is time to do the hard work of governing. It is time to stop blaming the previous government for the inaction of the present government.

The government must pass this legislation. The Liberals must bring in the changes they promised the working men and women of this country. I urge the government to finally make good on its promise to repeal the previous government's Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 and to urgently turn its attention to all the pressing issues facing Canadians. My NDP colleagues and I stand ready to help.

The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

Bill C-4—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement has been reached between a majority of the representatives of recognized parties under the provisions of Standing Order 78(2) with respect to the consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act. Therefore, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the Senate amendments stage of the said bill; and

That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the Senate amendments to the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration all be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Government Appointments

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you want to build something strong, you shall respect the authority of the House.

That is the problem with this government. It believes that it can do whatever it wants, not just with the infrastructure bank, but also with Investment Canada. Yesterday, a minister said in a parliamentary committee that the government was in the process of choosing a new president for this other government organization, which has not been approved yet because Bill C-4 has not yet been passed by this Parliament.

Once again, can the Prime Minister explain why he is flouting Parliament's authority?

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he can clarify some of the contradictions I have heard. The work in committee is something that is very aspirational. Bill C-4 was supposed to address many shortcomings and some regressive moves on the part of the previous government. This is now coming back and we are seeing more contradictions as the changes are explained. For instance, there was a Senate amendment to move all grievances under the Public Service Labour Relations Act instead of the RCMP Act. Does the member disagree with the report on workplace harassment in the RCMP, as recently as May 15, and if so—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That is okay, Madam Speaker. I have what people call selective hearing, so I am okay with heckling.

I want to emphasize that the discussion on the secret ballot was better served during the debate over Bill C-4. That bill put the discretion of the secret ballot or a card check process for certification back with the labour board. The board will ensure that the interests of RCMP members are reflected in the choice made. Why is member after member from the Conservative Party insisting on limiting that choice?

In fact, as a government, it is important we promote, encourage and put into place a uniform approach to labour relations. That makes sense. One group should not be different than another group, but the Conservative members consistently demonstrate they do not understand that principle. Why do they not understand the value of having a uniform approach on union certification across the public sector? I anxiously await an answer from any one of my Conservative colleagues.

I started by speaking to the issue of time allocation. I was here during questions and answers with regard to time allocation. I made the suggestion that when I was in opposition, it did not take very much for any group of 12 members of Parliament to in essence tie up legislation for quite a long period of time. If they are creative, it does not take much for 12, let alone 20, 30, or 40 members to do that. In fact, I remember sitting in the opposition benches when I indicated we needed a responsible opposition to assist in passing legislation, and Hansard is wonderful because we can find the quotes. We do not pat ourselves on the back because we can hold up legislation. Any opposition can do that.

What is the purpose of what the Conservatives are attempting to do here? They have made their position very clear. They do not like unions and their mission is to continue to delay indefinitely. They will argue that every member not only should be entitled once but twice, possibly even three or four times, to speak to the legislation because they do not want the legislation to pass. Therefore, when the Conservatives say that the government has put in time allocation, the first thing I would remind them is that Stephen Harper used it over 100 times. Even when the Harper government brought in time allocation, I often said that at times I felt sorry for the government. I recognized that one opposition party would talk about anything and everything, and that could frustrate the system.

When we bring in legislation, I respect the fact that we want to ensure there is an adequate amount of time for debate on issues. I like to consider myself a parliamentarian first and foremost in being able to contribute to debate and ensure there is, at the very least, an appropriate amount of time. On the issue of labour and labour relations and the whole certification, there have been many hours of debate inside this wonderful, beautiful chamber, inside our committee rooms, in the other place, not only in the last 18 months, under this government, but in the last couple of years of the Stephen Harper government. No one is saying anything surprising or shocking on the issue. It is a lot of rehashing of what has been said already.

The Prime Minister has been very clear in recognizing that if a standing committee comes up with ideas that can improve on the legislation and those improvements can be incorporated into the legislation, the government is open to that. That same principle also applies for the Senate of Canada.

I am pleased to reinforce that once again we have another piece of legislation in which the government has recognized some changes to it. That is a strong and positive thing.

However, let us not kid ourselves. The government House leader tries to fulfill her responsibility in getting the legislation through the House. Without time allocation or the goodwill of opposition members, it is virtually impossible to do that unless members are prepared to see the legislation pass in an appropriate time.

We have a limited amount of time for debate. Mid-June is coming really quickly and there is so much more we want to debate. There are oppositions motions to debate, and I always find them interesting. Even in opposition, there are limitations in passing things. A number of Conservatives, and even some New Democrats, ask about time allocation. That is the essence of why we have it today.

The government has listened to members of the Senate and members of the House on other aspects of the legislation and has allowed changes to Bill C-7, for example, more issues can now be collectively bargained, such as harassment issues. That was expanded upon because the government listened to members of House and Senate.

The bill provides an appropriate labour regime for our RCMP members to stand up for their rights. We wanted to achieve that, not only because of the direction given by the Supreme Court of Canada but because it was important to recognize that other law enforcement agencies were unionized, and things continue on relatively positively.

If we take a look at the men and women in the RCMP, who serve as officers or are in our reserves, and the incredible work they do, not only in Canada but abroad, I cannot understand why someone would oppose affording our law enforcement agency the opportunity to organize. That is a strong positive. We can reinforce that positive message by passing this legislation. I would encourage members, particularly in the Conservative Party, to send that positive message by voting in favour of the legislation.

It is important to recognize that the Senate offered five key amendments, and consequential amendments. Some of the amendments have been accepted by the government and others have not. However, the department has been very thorough in reviewing all the suggestions from the other House.

Some concerns have been raised by the New Democrats with respect to Bill C-7. Our response to the Senate amendments gives labour relations and collective bargaining regimes to allow our RCMP members to stand up for their rights.

We listened to the Senate and the members of this House by expanding the issues I pointed out earlier dealing with bargaining.

The idea that RCMP members can only collectively bargain pay and benefits is just not correct. That is an impression my friends in the New Democratic Party are trying to give out, and we know that it is not correct. They can collectively bargain a host of different issues, such as the terms and conditions for grievances and procedures for classification and workforce adjustments.

They can also bargain on issues such as harassment, something that is very topical. When we sat in opposition, one of my colleagues from Toronto often talked about harassment that was taking place and the desire to see something happen on that issue. I am glad it is being incorporated. I am sure all members are happy to see that.

There are issues the Conservative Party raises. It is no surprise that the Conservative Party is against the collective bargaining rights, per se. As the government, the Conservatives brought in anti-labour bills, which I made reference to, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

Bill C-4 deals with the issue of mandatory secret ballots. Bill C-7 was initially silent on this issue, because there should be a uniform approach across the public service. That is something the Conservatives need to recognize.

I want to recognize the agreement reached between the RCMP and the Government of Canada on April 6, 2017, which saw a significant increase in pay for our RCMP, which I think will go a long way in demonstrating the respect we have for the fine work they do.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to share a few thoughts and words.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

We know in reality that is not true. There is more to it, but they have emphasized that. In the debate on Bill C-4, which we have somewhat concluded, what did the Conservatives talk about? The secret ballot once again.

If listened to the debates in the other House, once again it was about the secret ballot.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on labour legislation. It not new for me, in that one of the very first speeches I gave as an elected official was during a fairly hot debate in the Manitoba legislature in 1988 on final offer selection. One of the issues back then that I picked up on relatively quickly was the importance of labour laws and how important it is for government to take an approach that promotes harmony within the workplace.

We have seen this government take this issue very seriously. It dates back to when the Prime Minister became the leader of the Liberal Party and we made the appointment of our labour critic. I often saw him stand in the House to criticize the government of the day for some of the anti-labour legislation that was being introduced through the back door, legislation that the government was quite eager to get behind and support. If I reflect on my early days of being a parliamentarian, what I witnessed while I was in opposition was an attitude that did a disservice to labour harmony in our country. We saw the Harper government try to use the politics of labour as a wedge issue, and it was very much anti-union. There is a substantial cost for that.

We need a national government to demonstrate leadership on that file, and that is why I was so glad that the Prime Minister took this issue very seriously as the leader of the third party of the House. He brought it into the election campaign, and we all know what happened in the last election. It is important to highlight that the first pieces of legislation we brought in were what we are debating today, Bill C-7 and Bill C-4. I choose to believe that Bill C-4 rectified some of the problems that Harper created.

Bill C-7 originates from a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada that indicated we should be providing a mechanism to allow our RCMP and reserves the opportunity to be associated as a labour group. That was an excellent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, but ultimately the Conservatives were quite content just to sit on the issue.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time today with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I am very pleased to be following the wonderful speeches made earlier today honouring our colleague, the Leader of the Opposition.

I am pleased to speak to the government's motion respecting amendments brought forward by the Senate to Bill C-7.

I want to acknowledge, in the same manner that my colleague from Brandon—Souris did, that the Conservative Party respects the Supreme Court's decision that RCMP officers are entitled to organize and bargain collectively. We recognize the great work of the men and women of the RCMP.

In much the same manner as Bill C-4, which is currently back before the House, the Senate has demonstrated a willingness to apply democratic principles to flawed legislation. I welcome this attention to democracy from the Senate and I am pleased to speak in favour of the Senate amendment regarding secret ballots, which the government has chosen to ignore in practice and attack in debate.

I have to openly wonder why it took the government 11 months to respond to amendments from the other place. The amendments from the Senate are substantially similar to the amendments to Bill C-7 last year when it was before committee. Last year, the government ignored the amendments as this legislation was deemed, in its words, too critical, so critical, in fact, that the government invoked time allocation to rush it through this House. Now, though, it appears that every bill is critical, of course, as time allocation seems to be used on every bill that the government bumbles through the House.

Upon receiving amendments from the Senate on this so-called critical bill, the government then promptly sat on the bill for almost an entire year. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board claims the government was “doing the thoughtful, careful analysis required to explore the whole portfolio of amendments made by the other place and to come forward with our response to have a robust regime for collective bargaining for the RCMP.”

I was personally shocked that she missed mentioning a whole-of-government approach and helping the middle class and those working to join it as an excuse for the delay. Let us rush the bill through because it is absolutely critical and then sit on it for an entire year because the government needs to carefully and thoughtfully consider the analysis. Why the government did not do that originally when drafting the bill or when similar suggestions were made in committee is beyond me.

Funnily enough, though, in spite of the government's odd stalling, Bill C-7 was, for the most part, a reasonable response to the Supreme Court's ruling on RCMP officers' rights to collectively bargain and organize. I cannot, however, endorse any bill that refuses to grant union members the right to vote in a secret ballot on whether to unionize.

I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board if she could tell us specifically why she thinks a card check system is better than a secret ballot system. In my question, I noted that secret ballots are used to elect members in this place, all the way down to simple acts like choosing high school student councils. On a question as important as whether or not workers want to join a union, why should those workers not be given the same priority?

In response, the parliamentary secretary criticized me for comparing the critical work of the RCMP to high school student councils. I do not take offence to such inane criticism from the member as it was evident she did not have a response to the uncomfortable reality that the government is endorsing anti-democratic principles.

In a follow-up question from my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge, the parliamentary secretary claimed that it is fairer to “restore the choice...for the Public Service Labour Relations Board to ensure whether the secret ballot or the card check system is in the interests of the members in a particular situation.” She also questioned why the RCMP should be “singled out for a more restrictive certification process than all the other groups that bargain with the government in labour relations.”

I have two responses to that. First, it is a poor justification for maintaining an anti-democratic system. It is an argument for keeping things the same because nothing else is changing. It is, frankly, a remarkably nonsensical excuse for denying democratic rights to workers and prospective union members. Second, we are not trying to single out the RCMP. We have consistently argued for the rights of union members and for the transparency of unions. Bill C-7 is one in a long line of examples where Conservatives have argued for greater transparency enshrined in law, which unions must follow.

Unions are like any employer organization. By virtue of their position, they necessarily have coercive power over their members and workers in a workplace. There is no logical reason why members opposite should argue that employers, through their scale and resources, possess undue power and influence over workers, but that unions, with their scale and resources, do not. Secret ballots balance out the power structure and ensure that workers come first.

The government has provided no indication that it recognizes the power imbalance and heavy entrenchment of unions, nor has it demonstrated any indication that it supports transparency in unions. On this side of the House, we believe in transparency, and we believe in legislation that strengthens the rights of individuals to make a choice free from intimidation.

When the parliamentary secretary asks why Conservatives want to single out the RCMP, the simple answer is that we will happily single out any organization for greater individual rights and greater transparency. RCMP members would be a good start, but all workers should know that this side of the House will stand up and defend their rights.

In a speech to the House last week, the member for Brandon—Souris reminded the House as follows:

...that in a briefing presented to the public safety committee, it was told that all previous certifications of public sector unions were done by secret ballot. By accepting this amendment, [the government] would actually treat the RCMP equally in terms of certification or decertification, as other public sector unions.

The parliamentary secretary is wrong for trying to justify anti-democratic legislation because current unions do not use secret ballots. She is wrong to argue that Conservatives are trying to single out the RCMP, because we have long argued for greater democracy and transparency. She is wrong to single out the RCMP because previous certifications of public sector unions were done by secret ballot, meaning that the Liberal government is actually singling out the RCMP for non-democratic treatment.

This is the second union-related bill that the Senate has sent back to the House with amendments calling for protection of the secret ballot certification process. It might be because the Senate has a point. Secret ballots are the only way to ensure union members can choose their future free from intimidation. The excuses put forward by the Liberal government do not justify denying democratic rights to workers.

I want to quote my friend and colleague the hon. member for Durham, who stated:

...my friends in the other parties are in Parliament not through a card check of their voters and their constituents but by their secret ballot vote, which is a fundamental tenet of our democracy.

It bothers me that we would suggest the federal government and the federal government's unionized work environment would have the same sort of intimidation stories you hear in relation to some private sector unionization efforts from years ago with unfair labour practices....

He is correct. The importance of the secret ballot cannot be understated, and must be upheld.

In researching some of the history of the secret ballot, I was reminded of the history of voting in the U.K., reading about the People's Charter written by the London Men's Working Association. As late as the mid-19th century, voting was still done by public show of hands at hustings. Given the prevalence of intimidation of voters, the demand for a secret ballot was one of the six key points of the People's Charter and the chartists' 1838 petition that “suffrage, to be exempt from the corruption of the wealthy and the violence of the powerful, must be secret.” The charter's points were not passed into law at that time. Unfortunately for all, the voting process was not made secret until the Ballot Act was passed in 1872. Voters in the U.K. fought for decades for secret ballots because it was the only method to protect their votes from intimidation. That the Liberal government is stuck in the mindset of the 19th century is quite disheartening.

In closing, I want to reiterate the comments made by my colleague from Brandon—Souris in quoting the hon. member for Carleton, who originally spoke on the legislation. He said that, in removing the right of a secret ballot, it was important to be very clear on what this meant. It meant that a union could take over a federally regulated workforce without there ever being a vote by a member from that workplace, and that thousands of employees from any number of federal employers could be forced to pay dues and be represented by a union for which they never had a chance to vote.

He noted that this would be particularly alarming when it related to the RCMP, an organization composed of members who put their lives on the line each and every day, in part to defend our democratic lifestyle. Therefore, it is great irony that members of the RCMP would be deprived of the most basic democratic right, which is the right to vote in secret on whether to certify a union, while they stand and defend our democratic rights.

I will reiterate my support for the Supreme Court's decision, and I firmly believe that RCMP members should be given the right of a secret ballot. I cannot support legislation that removes the ability of workers to choose their future, of their own volition and without fear of intimidation from anyone.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question. I know that the issue of a mandatory secret ballot seems to be important to the official opposition.

However, after hearing from many witnesses and taking the time to reflect on everything that we read and heard, after analyzing the Supreme Court of Canada decision and the Senate's recommendations, and after hearing from the main party involved, the RCMP, which is not calling exclusively for a secret ballot, the government is rejecting this amendment or proposal because it runs counter to Bill C-4, which would restore fair labour relations.

On the contrary, we believe that the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board must decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether a vote or a card check is the most appropriate and fair method in the certification process. There is no reason to treat the RCMP differently in that regard.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion presenting the government's proposed response to Bill C-7.

This bill takes a historic step in labour relations for the RCMP and in Canada. If the bill passes, RCMP members and reservists will for the first time have the same right to collective bargaining as other Canadians. RCMP members have a long tradition of exceptional dedication to their country. We just celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge and it is fitting that we point out that many valiant RCMP officers fought in that battle.

In fact, during the First World War, the Canadian government initially refused to send RCMP members overseas. However, a good number of them did not accept this decision. They decided to leave the North West Mounted Police in order to join the Canadian Expeditionary Force. During the Battle of Vimy Ridge, these members fought with the Canadian Armed Forces and many of them served with distinction.

A century later, RCMP members are just as courageous. Whether fighting drug trafficking on the ground or dealing with organized crime in the trenches, they are on the front line of public safety and we must ensure that they are working in a safe environment.

As far as harassment is concerned, I can assure my colleagues that the government is taking this issue very seriously. The government and the RCMP are determined to create a workplace free from harassment. We want to ensure that there are solid processes in place to deal with allegations effectively and safely.

I want to thank Ms. Fraser and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP for their work on the reports on harassment in the RCMP that were released this week. I also want to thank the courageous people who agreed to be interviewed for these reports. It is important that we all support the work of RCMP members and that we take all the appropriate measures to help them exercise their right to collective bargaining, which brings us to Bill C-7.

The Government of Canada is proposing this bill in response to an important ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Canada in January 2015. In that ruling, the Supreme Court found that the provisions that exclude members of the RCMP from the application of the Public Service Labour Staff Relations Act were unconstitutional because they prevented members from deciding on their own, like all other Canadians, whether they wanted to be represented by a bargaining agent.

I want to thank the Supreme Court of Canada for rendering that important decision, which has given us the opportunity to modernize the labour relations regime for RCMP members and reservists.

Bill C-7 gives members of the RCMP the freedom to choose, if they so desire, to unionize and bargain collectively through that union to make their needs known to their employer. It is the same freedom of choice enjoyed by all other police forces in Canada, which I think is important to point out.

The bill sets out to protect the rights of RCMP members while protecting Canadians and keeping them safe. The bill has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny by experts, stakeholders, and Senate and House of Commons committees, and we acted on their recommendations by making changes very early on in the process to things like how work-related injuries are handled.

In its response, the government accepted some of the amendments proposed by the Senate, amended some, and rejected others. Among other things, the government agreed to strike the RCMP-specific restrictions on bargaining and arbitral awards from Bill C-7 and to adopt a more targeted management rights clause.

These amendments will enable the employer and any future bargaining agent for RCMP members to hold good-faith discussions about issues that matter to RCMP members and reservists. This approach will preserve the commissioner's authority to manage the RCMP and ensure the operational integrity of the police service and the broader accountability of the RCMP for the safety of Canadians.

Certain limitations regarding issues that can be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards have been maintained. They are in line with existing provisions in the Public Service Labour Relations Act that apply to the rest of the federal public service.

The government is also rejecting the requirement regarding secret ballot voting to elect the bargaining agent who will represent RCMP members and reservists.

It is important to point out that Bill C-4 does not deny the RCMP the opportunity to hold this vote by secret ballot. All it does is allow the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to decide what is best based on the circumstances, either a secret ballot or a card check procedure.

In addition, if the bill does pass, the chair of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board must take into account the need to have at least two board members with knowledge of police organizations when making appointments.

Nor does the government want to expand the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to have it hear grievances on a broader range of issues relating to working conditions. This would be inconsistent with how the Public Service Labour Relations Act is applied to the rest of the public service and would create an overlap of appeal and grievance procedures that are established under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

Thanks to the government's proposed response, we have maintained the best bill possible because it takes into account countless hours of debate and healthy discussions. Accordingly, we must not delay any further.

As currently worded, the Public Service Labour Relations Act does not fully take into account the concerns and interests of RCMP members or their operational reality.

That is why we must move forward with Bill C-7 and implement a labour relations regime that provides RCMP members and reservists the freedom to choose to be represented by a bargaining agent and that takes into account the specific needs of a national police force.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of the government's proposed response to the amendments to Bill C-7.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

Our proposed response to the amendments is in line with our stated position. In this response, we demonstrate our support for the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service. Who could be more deserving of such support than the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service who protect Canadians on so many fronts?

Members of the RCMP come to work every day 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 the people who participate in international policing efforts, who safeguard the integrity of our borders, and provide counterterrorism and domestic security. They are the people who enforce our federal laws against commercial crime, counterfeiting, drug trafficking, and organized crime. They are the people who provide policing services under contract to eight provinces, the three territories, and more than 150 municipalities.

This bill, with amendments, helps support those who protect us, and these men and women who are recognized as a symbol of Canada around the world deserve our respect.

In addition, over the past few years, the RCMP has taken action to promote a respectful and healthy workplace. For example, a new code of conduct was implemented that specifically identifies harassment as a contravention of the code. Harassment in the workplace is an issue the Government of Canada takes very seriously. Discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, as well as bullying and harassment, is simply unacceptable.

What is more, in February 2016, the Minister of Public Safety asked the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the RCMP's policies and procedures on workplace harassment, and to evaluate the implementation of the recommendations the commission made in 2013.

In addition, in July 2016, the Minister of Public Safety announced the appointment of Sheila Fraser as a special adviser. Her role has been to provide advice and recommendations to the minister regarding the application of various policies and processes by the RCMP after the filing of legal proceedings against the organization in four specific cases. The recommendations by Ms. Fraser and the commission will be carefully reviewed, and will inform further work on improving the workplace of the RCMP. I would like to thank Ms. Fraser and Ian McPhail for their work, as well as the many individuals who agreed to be interviewed and who provided information that led to the findings and recommendations.

I should also mention that the RCMP has launched the informal conflict management program and a five-year mental health strategy for all employees.

The RCMP has made great strides with the initiatives, programs, and policies it has implemented. These steps are important not only to the RCMP but ultimately to Canadians who rely on them for integrity and effective policing. Our proposed response to the amendments increases the scope of what can be discussed and potentially included in a collective agreement to include issues such as harassment.

Let me turn to the specifics of the government's response to these amendments. As I just stated, our government accepts the amendment to remove the restrictions on what may be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards that are specific to the RCMP. This amendment ensures that the employer and any future RCMP member bargaining agent can engage in meaningful discussions in good faith on topics of importance to RCMP members and reservists. This amendment increases the scope of the issues that could be discussed at the bargaining table, issues that now include transfers and appraisals, and matters commonly associated with harassment, and general aspects of workplace wellness, such as the promotion of a respectful workplace and early conflict resolution.

It is in support of our national police service that we also accept, with some modifications, the amendment to include a management rights clause as part of the new labour relations regime for RCMP members and reservists. We have the utmost respect for the commissioner's authority to manage the RCMP and to ensure the operational integrity of the police service.

What is at stake here is the safety and security of Canadians. Keeping Canadians safe is a serious responsibility, and our government takes this responsibility seriously. We propose a more targeted management rights clause to focus on the authorities that the RCMP commissioner needs to ensure effective police operations. We do this because we also value the rights of the RCMP members and reservists, the dedicated men and women who risk their lives every day to keep Canadians safe.

With these two measures alone, I am confident that the motion before us today addresses the key concerns with the bill. We must preserve the restrictions on what can be negotiated that replicate those that have applied to the rest of the federal public service for over 40 years. We must also maintain the current mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. Expanding this mandate to include all matters pertaining to terms and conditions of employment would result in two different grievance processes that might lead to conflicting decisions.

Finally, the government cannot proceed with the amendment requiring a secret ballot vote to certify a bargaining agent to represent RCMP members and reservists. The secret ballot amendment is contrary to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

Bill C-4, which was introduced in the House of Commons on January 28, 2016, seeks to repeal legislation adopted in 2013 that sought to undermine unions' organizing efforts. Bill C-4 puts the discretion of certification with the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. Whether there will be a secret ballot or a card check, the board will make sure the members' interests are reflected in the choice made.

To conclude, as we celebrate Canada's 150 years, let us not forget one of Canada's most venerable police services, which is why our government urges all members to proudly support the proposed response to the amendments to Bill C-7.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one can get very easily disappointed with the Conservative Party when it comes to issues dealing with labour.

Conservatives come to the table with a bias, which is really very much against unions. Whether it is this bill or Bill C-4, once again the Conservatives are the isolated party in the House. The government of the day, the NDP, and the Green Party recognize the value of the legislation, and yet the Conservative Party chooses to try to divide labour and management.

We all recognize the valuable role that our RCMP plays in our society. We applaud each and every woman and man who performs their duty for us day in and day out. Could the member tell us why the Conservative Party continues to play up divisive labour issues as wedge issues? Why does the Conservative Party not recognize that the Canadian economy will work better if we have more harmony within labour, management, and business?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member for Vancouver Quadra was disappointed with my speech. She may have noted from the outset that I did broadly agree and support the aims of the bill, but the important issue at stake, the issue of the secret ballot, is such that it renders the rest of the bill, unfortunately, unworthy of support. Bill C-4, as well, is unworthy of support. It is not too late for the government to fix both bills at once.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually disappointing that the member opposite strictly narrowed his remarks to the secret ballot issue. Is there nothing else important to the RCMP? Wait, in fact, that is not something that was asked for by the members themselves. In fact, the discussion on the secret ballot is well served in the debate on Bill C-4. That bill would put the discretion as to the certification methodology into the hands of the labour board.

How will the member explain to RCMP members in his riding that all the benefits of collective bargaining they would be acquiring through Bill C-7 are being rejected by his no vote because of a matter that is actually being handled under Bill C-4, different legislation?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have tremendous respect for the RCMP and appreciate and admire its work. We do not question the wisdom of the Supreme Court when it ruled that the current labour regime for the RCMP needs reform to comply with RCMP members' section 2 charter rights, which is why we supported the bill at second reading when it was first introduced.

What we disagree with is the disregard for democratic governance Bill C-7 contained when passed at third reading. We also disagree with the government's choice to reject important amendments to Bill C-7 wisely passed by the Senate.

This bill would enable RCMP members to unionize for the purpose of collective bargaining if they see fit to do so. This bill is not about whether the RCMP should or should not unionize, and I take no position on that question. Most of this bill is agreeable, but it does contain one pitfall.

As the official opposition's deputy critic for Treasury Board, my opposition to the bill, as passed at third reading, and my support for the amended version, which the Senate has returned to the House of Commons, arises from concern about the working environment it would create for members of the RCMP if passed without amendment.

Bill C-7 would not require a secret ballot to certify or decertify a union to represent RCMP members in labour negotiations. My fellow Conservatives and I cannot support the bill unless the issue is corrected.

I supported the bill at second reading, as did my Conservative colleagues, for one purpose. We wanted to send it to committee, hoping that the majority of members would accept sensible amendments to protect the RCMP members' right to privacy as well as their freedom of association. Conservative members argued that any decision to certify or decertify a union to represent RCMP members must include a secret ballot to protect members from undue pressure or reprisal. I will return to that point in a moment.

The Liberals rejected this amendment at committee and returned the bill for third reading, and now the Senate has sent it back to the House with amendments. Two of these amendments would require a secret ballot vote for certification.

The motion before us today states that the government:

respectfully disagrees with amendments 2 and 4(a) because the government has introduced legislation to repeal secret ballot provisions for other public servants...;

The motion also disagrees with other amendments the Senate made in recognition of the RCMP's unique structure and circumstances, which would require modifications to existing labour laws.

I am going to focus my remarks on the amendments on secret ballots and let other members speak to the merits of the other amendments.

Canadians should never feel unduly pressured when exercising their democratic rights as citizens of a free country. None of us should worry that third parties will keep track of our voting choice or seek to reward or punish as a result. As members of Parliament, we should know this well. We were all elected by secret ballot. Voters took their ballots behind a privacy screen, filled them in, alone with their conscience, folded them so no one could see their selection, and put the ballot in the box.

It is not too difficult to imagine how different Canada would be if political organizers, neighbours, ethnic or religious community leaders, employers, union leaders, friends, or even family members hovered over a voter's shoulder when voting in an election.

As my friend, the member for Carleton, mentioned on March 22, 2016, the rate of success for unionization drives appears demonstrably higher with a card check system alone than with a secret ballot, as workers who would prefer not to unionize appear to give in to pressure to sign petitions that would not be present under a secret ballot.

When members of Parliament selected Speakers of this House, they did so by secret ballot, in part to shield the Speaker from any appearance of partiality and to remove any doubt Canadians might have when the Speaker rules on any issue regarding a particular member.

Protecting individuals from undue pressure, recrimination, and reprisal should apply to Canada's national police force even more so than to parliamentarians, and certainly more so than at other workplaces.

Decisions to certify or decertify unions or associations significantly affect workplaces. How one votes or how one chooses can determine the course of many relationships if the choice is known.

In a hierarchical organization like the RCMP, which is modelled as a paramilitary force, with a clear chain of command, trust and confidence between ranks is even more important than in other workplaces. Superiors must know that their subordinates will dutifully follow orders. Subordinates must know that their superiors will exercise good judgment and not put them in harm's way without cause. Trust and undivided loyalty to the force is essential to police morale and the safety of its workers.

A card check system for union certification, in which everyone knows who signed the petition, creates rifts within the hierarchy. Such divisions have serious repercussions, especially for police morale. Secret ballots avoid these risks by protecting all members' privacy. Unless members discuss their positions with others or disclose how they voted, no one can be certain what a given member has chosen.

Secret ballots also better fulfill the spirit of the Supreme Court's case that gave rise to Bill C-7. Among other points, the court emphasized the need for meaningful representation, choice, and independence from management. A secret ballot enables meaningful representation by allowing workers to select the union they believe will best protect their interests. It shields them from undue pressure to vote for whoever pushes the hardest.

As my colleague from Carleton discussed when Bill C-7 came up at second reading, the bill gets it right in requiring any union representing the RCMP to do so as its primary mandate. Such a union could not be affiliated with another bargaining agent or association with a different primary purpose, and it could not be certified to represent any other group of employees.

Since the association would be composed of RCMP members representing their colleagues, secrecy at the ballot box would be essential to avoid resentment in the ranks if the association failed and needed to be decertified and reconstituted.

Secret ballots facilitate individual choice as the basis for consent to corporate decisions. They also facilitate representation independent from management by ensuring that members can freely reject a proposed representative if they consider the person to be too close to management.

I understand the reasons behind the government's rejection of amendments 2 and 4(a). I simply disagree. The rule of law demands that laws be consistent and treat similar things in a similar fashion. Since the Liberals are stripping other workers of secret ballot protection via Bill C-4, they say that it is therefore consistent for Bill C-7 to reject the secret ballot requirement for the RCMP.

The Liberals' decision today may be consistent, but it is wrong. They are wrong on Bill C-4, and the reasons they are wrong on Bill C-4 are amplified in Bill C-7 because of the very nature of the RCMP.

Instead of seeking to be consistent by refusing to extend secret ballot protection to the RCMP while repealing secret ballot provisions for everyone else, the government should do exactly the opposite. It should restore secret ballot protection for all federal workers and agree to amendments 2 and 4(a) to extend it to the RCMP.

If the Liberals value consistency, they should not argue that secret ballots for workers are somehow undemocratic. Each of them was democratically elected by secret ballot. Instead, they should acknowledge that secret ballots to certify unions are both democratic and consistent with secret ballots to select union leaders. They should join British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, which all require secret ballots for certification decisions. They should lead the way in having a consistent standard for workers across provincial and federal jurisdictions.

I conclude by encouraging all my colleagues in this House to protect the democratic rights of RCMP members by voting against today's motion and insisting that the government adopt the amendments from the Senate.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to offer my support to the government's motion regarding Bill C-7, a bill that provides a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists.

Since its beginning in 1873, when Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald introduced in this very House the act establishing the North-West Mounted Police, the RCMP has been an integral part of Canada's development.

As my talented and tireless legislative assistant, Adrian Zita-Bennett, advises me, we need only read our history books. When it came to bringing law and order to the Northwest Territories, the RCMP was ready and willing with its march west in 1894.

During the Klondike Gold Rush, the RCMP rose to the challenge of policing the stampede of people looking to get rich, and when it came to being the first ship to completely circumnavigate North America, the RCMP schooner St. Roch claimed that honour.

In World War I and World War II, the RCMP played vital roles, but despite their long and storied contribution to Canada, these members did not have full freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining. However, that has changed. The Supreme Court has removed the barriers that RCMP members face in exercising this right.

Bill C-7 provides the appropriate framework of labour laws that would govern the RCMP and ensures that RCMP members and reservists can be represented and bargain collectively, like other police services in Canada.

Bill C-7 has several key elements that reflect the clear preferences expressed by RCMP members during the consultations that occurred in the summer of 2015. Specifically, members indicated that they wanted a labour relations framework that provided for a single national bargaining unit, a union that is primarily focused on representing RCMP members, and the recourse to binding arbitration if a collective agreement could not be negotiated.

Bill C-7 creates this framework. It would do this by amending both the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to create a new labour relations regime for RCMP members and for reservists.

I rise today to offer my support to the government's response to the amendments of the Senate.

To begin, the government's motion accepts the removal of all restrictions on what may be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards that are specific to the RCMP. This includes matters such as harassment, transfers and appointments, and appraisals of RCMP members.

Harassment in the workplace is an issue that the Government of Canada takes very seriously. Discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation, bullying, and harassment are flatly unacceptable. I believe quite strongly that this one concession, in and of itself, addresses the chief criticism of the bill.

The government's motion also accepts the management rights clause adopted by the Senate and proposes targeting it to focus on protecting the authorities that the RCMP commissioner needs to ensure effective police operations. This also goes a long way to meeting the concerns raised by the Senate.

The government's motion proposes retaining the restrictions that replicate those applying to other areas of the federal public service, such as restrictions preventing pensions from being bargained. It does not agree with the requirement for a mandatory secret ballot vote as the only option for the certification of a bargaining agent to represent RCMP members and reservists. Our government believes that there should be choice between secret ballots and a card check system. The issue of secret ballots was not an issue specifically related to addressing the Supreme Court's decision. Moreover, an organization wanting to represent RCMP members should not be subjected to certification processes different from those of other organizations under federal labour relations legislation.

Bill C-4 reflects the principles of fairness and balance, and also gives proper recognition to the role of bargaining agents.

Finally, the government proposes not proceeding with expanding the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to hear grievances on a wider range of matters, including many that are outside of a collective agreement. This would be inconsistent with the application of the Public Service Labour Relations Act to the rest of the federal public service, and it would create overlap with the appeal and grievance processes established under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

I believe that we now have the best possible legislation, given all the competing interests that must be accommodated. It is therefore important that we act now to put in place a new labour relations framework to minimize disruption for members, reservists, and RCMP management.

There is currently an overlap between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which could result in confusion and conflicting interpretations. In addition, members could be represented by multiple bargaining agents, which would make it difficult for the RCMP to maintain a cohesive national approach to labour relations. Also, there would be more uncertainty among RCMP members about their collective bargaining rights.

Bill C-7 would effectively provide RCMP members and reservists with a process that ensures independence and freedom of choice in labour relations matters. The bill would also recognize the specific requirements of a national police service and the unique attributes of the RCMP as set out in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. It would balance these with the need for consistency with the broader public service labour relations regime of which it is a part.

The government has taken important steps to ensure that workers can organize freely and that unions and employers can bargain collectively and in good faith. Bill C-7 is one part of that, and it honours the right of the RCMP members and reservists to freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining.

The time for talk is over. Now is the time to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due. I for one am proud to vote for this motion, which does just that.

Resuming Debate

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that we will bring some fairness back to the collective bargaining regime for members of the RCMP.

We are rejecting the amendment for secret ballots because it is at odds with Bill C-4, which would restore a fair and level playing field to labour relations. We believe that the labour relations board should have the ability to decide whether a vote or a card check is the most appropriate and fair method for certification on a case-by-case basis. There is no reason to treat the RCMP differently in this regard.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my Conservative colleague's comments.

The background to Bill C-7 that we are debating today is that the Conservative Party is essentially against appropriate collective bargaining rights, and those members showed that when they brought in anti-labour bills such as Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Our government tabled Bill C-4 to put the discretion of certification back with the Public Service Labour Relations Board, where it used to be, to determine whether a secret ballot or a card check is the most appropriate. The board is committed to making sure that members' interests are reflected in the choice made.

That was the system we had until the previous Conservative government made those anti-union changes. When RCMP members were extensively consulted by the previous Conservative government, narrowing down the certification method to exclude a card-check system was not on their list of priorities.

The Conservative member is not reflecting the desire of RCMP members. He is not reflecting the fact that the dual system arbitrated through the Public Service Labour Relations Board has been in place successfully for many years.

Why would the member let this one element convince him to vote against all of the positives, like providing RCMP members with a labour relations opportunity, to be represented by a union, which is what they want and is what the Supreme Court ruled that they deserved to have? Why would he vote against that?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of the government's motion related to Bill C-7. This piece of legislation is important for both the RCMP and for Canadians. It is a step forward in Canadian labour relations.

As we all know, the bill originates with the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada more than two years ago, in January 2015. There is some urgency for us to enact this piece of legislation into law so that the RCMP can be the best police force in the world, with good management practices matching the ability of our RCMP officers to keep Canadians safe.

The court found that certain parts of the RCMP labour relations regime were in fact unconstitutional because they prevented the formation of an independent RCMP employee organization. The government took steps, including extensive consultation, to bring this framework into compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling, and Bill C-7 is the result.

I differ with the position of the previous speaker by saying that there has been extensive consultation. The bill has been under a microscope for a great deal of time in a committee of the House of Commons and a committee of the Senate, as well as through debate in the House of Commons and debate in the Senate. It is now time for us to act quickly on this motion to ensure that we can have effective collective bargaining for the very hard-working members of the RCMP.

With the passage of this bill, RCMP members and reservists would, for the first time, have a labour relations framework in place that would allow them to choose whether or not to be represented in negotiations by an employee organization, something that other police services in Canada already have. Almost 100 years ago, the Vancouver police union received its charter and was established with the mandate to effectively and democratically represent its members as a bargaining unit under the British Columbia labour code. It is time for us to act so that Canadians have a similar approach to policing in Canada.

Action is something that RCMP officers know a lot about. As the chair of the public safety and national security committee, I want to commend members of the RCMP for consistently and constantly serving and protecting Canadians with diligence, with grace, and with a tremendous competence that Canadians have begun to appreciate more and more. Whether it is diving into icy water to rescue a woman in distress or protecting us in this very place, RCMP officers demonstrate their personal dedication and self-sacrifice in service of others, and now we as members of this chamber need to reciprocate and take action to help them, to serve them, and to protect them.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness are strongly committed to whatever action is necessary to help RCMP members, trainees, and employees feel safe and respected among their colleagues and supervisors.

A number of steps have been taken since 2014 to protect RCMP members in the workplace. These include measures to address harassment and conflict management as well as promote a healthy and respectful workplace.

The RCMP continues its ongoing efforts to improve its work environment, including a modernized code of conduct, a streamlined harassment investigation and resolution process, and improved training for harassment investigators. Bill C-7 builds on these efforts to implement a robust labour relations regime for the RCMP. To that end, the government has given thorough consideration to the Senate's amendments and is now ready to move forward.

The government's response significantly addresses the main concerns that we heard at the House of Commons standing committee as well as in the Senate, and I am very proud to support the government's response to the Senate amendments.

In the spirit of compromise that is so important in an institution like ours, the government is willing to accept the removal of all restrictions on what may be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards that are specific to the RCMP. These restrictions on what could be collectively bargained for were the focal points of the criticism that we heard at committee and that we are now acting on.

Sometimes this kind of conversation takes time. However, that conversation has been had. I stress to members of this chamber that the reality is we need to act quickly and effectively. We have considered, and now is the time to act.

That is why I am pleased to report that the government's response would allow the employer and any future RCMP member bargaining agent to engage in meaningful discussions in good faith on topics of importance to the RCMP members and reservists who were excluded from collective bargaining rights under the original version of Bill C-7.

As a result, matters associated with transfers, appraisals, harassment, and general aspects of workplace wellness, including the promotion of a respectful workplace and early conflict resolution, could be discussed at the bargaining table and included in a collective agreement or arbitration award. Of course, conditions of work, such as hours of work, scheduling, call-back, and reporting conditions could also be collectively bargained, as could leave provisions, such as designated paid holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, and parental leave. Labour relations matters, such as terms and conditions for grievance procedures and procedures around classification and workplace adjustment, are also part of that process.

The proposal before us today also accepts the idea of a management rights clause, but proposes implementing a more targeted clause that focuses on protecting the authorities that the RCMP commissioner needs in order to ensure effective police operations. This is a balanced approach. The reality is that the bargaining unit would have the right to engage in conversations at the bargaining table about issues important to RCMP members, and management would reserve the right to ensure that Canadians are safe and protected and that we have operational institutional effectiveness at the RCMP, not by excluding anything in collective bargaining but by ensuring we have a targeted approach to make sure the RCMP functions properly, as Canadians would want.

As I am sure all my hon. colleagues on these benches do, the Government of Canada takes seriously the responsibility to protect the safety and security of Canadians. This amended management rights clause supports that responsibility.

Now let us consider why the motion disagrees with the removal of restrictions that replicate those applying to other areas of the federal public service.

As our national police service, the RCMP must have a labour regime that is aligned with and consistent with the fundamental framework for labour relations and collective bargaining that exists within the whole of the federal public service. As such, Bill C-7 extends to RCMP members many general exclusions that already apply in the rest of the public service, such as staffing, pensions, organization of work, and the assignment of duties.

With respect to pensions, while the public service pension plan has never been the subject of collective bargaining under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, or its predecessor, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the federal government has traditionally consulted with employee representatives on pension issues and is committed to continuing that conversation, negotiation, and consultation.

Public sector pensions have established statutory pension advisory committees whose membership is composed of employer, employee, and pensioner representatives. These committees review matters respecting the administration, design, and funding of the benefits provided under the superannuation acts and make recommendations to the responsible minister about those matters. This is an activity we would continue.

When it comes to the certification process, I do not believe that the certification of a bargaining agent to represent RCMP members and reservists should require a secret ballot. We need to be consistent with the government's proposed law, Bill C-4, and it would be reasonable that an organization wanting to represent RCMP members should not be subject to certification processes different from those of other organizations under federal labour relations legislation.

Finally, the government proposes to not proceed with expanding the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to hear grievances on a wider range of matters relating to terms and conditions of employment. That would be inconsistent with its work with the rest of the federal public service.

Now is the time to act on Bill C-7. The House of Commons standing committee deliberated it thoroughly and thoughtfully, and heard concerns. The Senate has deservedly done its work and has appropriately amended it. The government has considered those amendments and has determined that some of them fall in line with the government's proposed agenda with respect to the RCMP certification process.

I am pleased to support Bill C-7 and welcome all other members to support the bill and our amendments as we go forward.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a problem, and it is not one that the government can say in good faith that it was not aware of, because it is one that we have raised.

We have said that we need to get Bill C-7 back to the House, because it is creating legal uncertainty for prospective bargaining agents. Exactly because Bill C-7 is not what confers the right of collective bargaining on RCMP members, because it is a decision of the Supreme Court, they are allowed to apply it at any time under the existing rules. Therefore, because the NDP agrees with what the government is saying, if not what it does, that there is justification for a unique collective bargaining framework for RCMP members, although we may disagree about the details of what should be in it, we thought it was really important to get that in place as soon as possible. We knew and the government knew that there were prospective bargaining agents out there getting people to sign cards, demonstrating interest in the lead-up potentially to a vote. Bill C-4 has not gone through the Senate; the government cannot seem to accomplish that, so those agents do not know if they would need to have a vote or whether a card check is going to work. There is a lot of legal uncertainty.

We have been saying for a long time that the government needs to act on Bill C-4 and get it done. It needs to act on Bill C-7 and get it done. Otherwise, the government is risking getting into a situation where people start to act in the current legal context and then the rug is pulled out from underneath their feet, and all of a sudden the rules that they were organizing and applying under are not the same rules that their application is being treated by.

That is exactly the situation that is developing. It was not hard to see or imagine that would happen. It is a real shame that we have reached this point. The government needs to do a better job of extricating itself from this, lest it be perceived as being partisan in an area where it really ought not to be.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, from the comments my colleague made, it is clear that the bill is very complex in terms of the changes that have been brought forward and hence, adequate debate needs to take place in the House. Of course, the government has chosen to impose time allocation.

The member raised a point which is very important with respect to different points of view between management and stakeholders. I have an example from one of my constituents, who raised the issue on another bill, Bill C-4, which was meant to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. At committee, he highlighted the fact that his employee was invited to the committee to offer a different point of view from his own. A case in point is that management opposed Bill C-4, but the employee of the company did not agree with management. That is a very important distinction. Hence, it is important to ensure that those voices are heard as well.

I wonder if the member would elaborate on that distinction, the importance of it, and how the process the government has embarked on falls short.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation Motion

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

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

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to finally get a chance to weigh in again on the Bill C-7 debate. It has been a very long wait, so it is good to see that the process is back in action.

As I mentioned in some of my questions previously on this bill, it is a bit of a mystery to me, given the content of the government's opinion with respect to the amendments coming from the other place, why it essentially took 11 months to get back to this place, particularly when previously, in the debate last spring, the government was very anxious to move the bill through the House.

At that time, the government made arguments essentially to the effect that the sky would fall if we did not get these amendments in place. Of course, we know now that the sky did not fall. What did happen was that it created a significant period, still ongoing, of legal uncertainty for prospective bargaining agents. That has made it very difficult for them to be able to organize properly.

We are now in a situation, as of the beginning of April, where there are two applicant now, one to represent RCMP members across the country, which would be consistent with what is in Bill C-7, but because Bill C-7 is not law, and again I repeat that is due to delays on the government's part, having had amendments from the other place as early as June 21 of last year, there is also an application from an association to represent members from Quebec alone. If Bill C-7 passes in its current form, that would not be allowed.

Because of dithering on the Liberal side with respect to getting this done, and the companion legislation Bill C-4 as well, which gets rid of some bills from the previous Parliament affecting certification and decertification of unions, we are now in a real mess.

I think the government risks the perception, at least, of interfering in an ongoing certification process, because it is now trying to advance legislation which, had it passed earlier, there would be no question about it and there would be no problem. Now, because there is an application for regional representation within the RCMP, the government may be perceived by some as taking sides as to which organization should represent members in Quebec or any other region of the province that has an organization apply to represent either members of a certain province or certain region in the meantime.

That is why it was really important, as the government itself argued last spring, to get this legislation through. That is why we in the NDP were happy to help move that legislation through and work with the government to meet its timeline, while nevertheless improving the legislation, for instance, by taking out the needless and prejudicial exclusions on bargaining that were included in the original part of the legislation, and which the other place saw fit to remove.

Now the government is indicating that maybe it thinks it is not a bad idea to get rid of those, although it is replacing them with some other language. As the member for Brandon—Souris indicated, we only saw notice of that motion yesterday late in the evening. It is early to try to provide detailed comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, I will resume my comments on Tuesday, when hopefully I will have been able to take the time to examine the response in more detail.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to the member that on the principle of the card check, we have a serious disagreement, but we will let that lie. We have spent a fair bit of time on that in the debate on both this bill and Bill C-4.

There is a practical issue when it comes to a secret ballot vote for certification for RCMP members, which is that RCMP members are spread across the country. Many live in rural and remote communities. Some are posted internationally.

To organize a new union with very little experience, plus management that is not used to dealing with the unionized culture, plus a government that has not seen a certification within the public service for a very long time, and to organize a vote that has the reliability and integrity members would expect to make sure that their votes are counted, becomes very difficult. With the card check system, it is much easier to canvas members as to whether they want a union.

I am wondering if the member would support the government hiring a third party, with knowledge and experience providing resources, to ensure that a vote was conducted as it should be and that all members, wherever they were posted in the country or the world, got that ballot and had it safely returned, to ensure that there was integrity in the process. Would he agree to support the government in resourcing that vote if the secret ballot vote were upheld?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise to speak to the government's motion in respect of the amendments brought forward by the Senate to Bill C-7.

Before I begin my remarks, I want to take this moment to personally thank the 28,000-plus regular members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Throughout Canadian history, they have played an integral role and to this day continue to serve and protect the communities they are posted to.

The Conservative Party respects the Supreme Court's decision that RCMP officers are entitled to organize and bargain collectively. We will always support the RCMP, and we thank all members for the great work they do on the front lines in keeping our communities and neighbourhoods safe.

For the most part, Bill C-7 was a reasonable response to the court's ruling. However, I did not and cannot support any legislation that denies employees, especially RCMP members, the right to vote in a secret ballot on whether to unionize. RCMP members risk their lives every day. The least we can do is give them the democratic right to vote free of all intimidation on whether to unionize.

It is crucial to step back and understand the full context of how this legislation got here in the first place.

Currently, RCMP members are not allowed to unionize and bargain collectively. They have no recourse to arbitration or strikes. These matters were brought to the Supreme Court of Canada, which rendered its decision that struck down the exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of “employee” in the Public Service Labour Relations Act as being unconstitutional.

Moreover, the Supreme Court said that sections of the RCMP regulations breached the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was that Supreme Court decision that stated that careful and methodical consultations must take place. It also required members of the House of Commons to enshrine the constitutional freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining if they so wish.

It was during those consultations that a significant majority of those who participated supported the idea of forming a union. It was through those consultations that members of the RCMP indicated that they preferred to use binding arbitration, without the right to strike, as the way to resolve stalled collective bargaining. This is in line with various other police organizations across the country. The members were also clear that they wanted to be represented by a single national employee organization, whose primary mandate would be the representation of its members.

Many members in the House represent constituents who have been or currently are serving members in the RCMP. In fact, there are currently RCMP members posted to Parliament Hill, and they are part of our daily lives while the House is in session.

Many members are following this legislation closely and applaud the work of the Senate and the amendments it brought forward on Bill C-7, a bill 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.

I feel it is appropriate to point out that the Senate passed these amendments and sent the legislation back to the House over ten months ago. My colleague just pointed out in his question that it is actually closer to 11 months.

I understand that the government wanted to fully review the amendments and to consult widely. Public Safety Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Privy Council Office, and the Prime Minister's Office were all involved in determining the government's response to these amendments. Even though there were many government departments and officials involved in this process, the government should have moved on this debate months ago, a point that was just made, as the Supreme Court ruling, I point out, contained a time frame for implementing legislation that is collecting dust.

I know many members of the RCMP and the various other stakeholders involved in drafting the legislation would have preferred to have been at this stage at a much earlier date.

Second, on a procedural matter, the rank-and-file members of the RCMP should know that the Liberal government only tabled its motion to the Senate amendments late last night and expected members of this chamber to be prepared to speak to it today. I can only speculate on why the government took this course of action. However, I do believe that at the outset of this legislation back in 2016, even the government's own caucus was deeply divided on the exclusions from the bargaining table found in the legislation.

For example, the hon. member for Beaches—East York said during the public safety committee meeting on April 21, 2016, during clause by clause consideration:

I actually have serious concerns with the exclusions as they exist, for the simple reason that in all the evidence we heard, we heard repeatedly that these exclusions as they relate to workplace safety specifically are major issues that unions are not going to be able to put on the table when they collectively bargain.

While I will not lament too much the government's disregard to providing the ample time to prepare a response to its motion on which amendments it is willing to accept, I will at least thank the Liberals for finally getting back to the task at hand and allowing us as members of Parliament to speak to the Senate amendments. Enough time has already been wasted and it is time to move on with this much delayed legislation.

To provide greater context on how we reached this point, it is important to highlight that many of the amendments the Senate passed were brought forward during the original House debates and at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. After reviewing the minutes, it is important to thank the hon. members for their due diligence in pointing out some of the flaws that were found in the original bill.

In particular, I would like to thank my fellow Manitoban, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, for the work he did, as he just pointed out, on reviewing the legislation and providing different points of view.

It is abundantly clear that our Conservative caucus members were very much willing to work with the government to meet the timelines as outlined in the Supreme Court decision. The legislation could not have been drafted overnight, as the very make-up of the RCMP is distinctive and unique from every other public service occupation. We know the paramilitary nature of the RCMP had to be considered as a unique element when designing the bargaining environment.

This will not shock the members of the NDP when I say the RCMP should be given explicit language, found in this legislation, that will guarantee members of the RCMP the right to a secret ballot if they do decide to form a union and collectively bargain with the <crown. This basic democratic principle must be enshrined in law, not only in Bill C-7 but also in Bill C-4, which was amended by the Senate. I want the record to be clear that our Conservative caucus supports the Senate amendments in both Bill C-7 and Bill C-4 that pertain to the right of workers to have a secret ballot.

Previously I have spoken out against any attempts to roll back the rights of hard-working union members and to repeal the transparency of unions, which finally allowed sunshine to be let into their financial ledgers. While Bill C-7 does not relate to union transparency, it sure has a lot to do with the ability of the RCMP to certify or decertify a union. I do believe the current government is trying to eliminate the guarantee of a secret ballot, not because it wants to support hard-working Canadians but because there are ulterior motives, such as a bargaining chip with various other public service unions.

The elimination of the current government policy of enshrining secret ballots goes far beyond just the RCMP. It involves hundreds of thousands of federally regulated employees across the country.

I originally criticized the Liberals for the lightening speed at which they introduced Bill C-4, the legislation that stripped away workers' rights, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that we are still debating the legislation that was brought forward in February 2016, and it has yet to receive royal assent. This is not such a bad thing and to give credit where credit is due, the Senate also amended that legislation and sent it back to the House.

Liberal MPs in the House today should carefully review the legislation, which was amended by the Senate. They will quickly see that the Senate wanted this legislation to provide RCMP members with the guarantee they would receive a ballot and be able to cast the vote on whether to form a union in secret. This is the only guaranteed way to ensure there is no coercion or intimidation applied from any side of the argument. This would ensure that no matter the rank or seniority, all members of the RCMP are treated equally and fairly and, most of all, without any fear of repercussions on how they proceeded on collectively bargaining.

The Senate has been applying its powers to amend legislation quite frequently in the past few months. I applaud it for its ability to take a deep dive into complex and politically sensitive matters. There is no expectation that the government has to accept every amendment brought forward, but it would be wise for Liberal members to note that even their government House leader in the Senate and all the new independent members, including all former Liberal members who are now part of the independent Liberal caucus, voted to ensure the RCMP was guaranteed its right to a secret ballot. It is far and few between that unanimity is reached on legislation, except in exceptional circumstances or on motherhood and apple pie sorts of issues.

I think we can all agree that Bill C-7 is a rather complex and nuanced issue and the fact that all senators, regardless of political stripe, agreed that the right to a secret ballot must not only be given to the RCMP in Bill C-7, but that all federally regulated environments must be given the same protection. I do not buy the line from the government's benches that giving the RCMP the right to a secret ballot would treat it differently. I would remind the House that in a briefing presented to the public safety committee, it was told that all previous certifications of public sector unions were done by secret ballot. By accepting this amendment, it would actually treat the RCMP equally in terms of certification or decertification, as other public sector unions.

Furthermore, I would like to quote my colleague, the hon. member for Durham, who stated:

...my friends in the other parties are in Parliament not through a card check of their voters and their constituents but by their secret ballot vote, which is a fundamental tenet of our democracy.

It bothers me that we would suggest the federal government and the federal government's unionized work environment would have the same sort of intimidation stories you hear in relation to some private sector unionization efforts from years ago with unfair labour practices...

The importance of the secret ballot as a democratic principle must be upheld. Every member in this chamber is here today because residents in their ridings chose to give them the most personal thing they possess: their vote. We have no higher duty in our role as members than to safeguard the democratic principles that hold our country together. The secret ballot is the highest pillar of this process and it seems absurd to me that any member of the House could argue that we need less voter protection, that we need less transparency, that we need less democracy.

While I recognize that the right to a secret ballot was just one of the amendments the Senate asked the government to revise in Bill C-7, it is, among others, that the government has decided not to accept it.

In continuation of the real and deep criticism I have of the Liberal government's intentions of stripping away the rights of workers, I would like to quote the hon. member for Carleton who originally spoke on the legislation.

He said that by removing the right of a secret ballot vote, it was important to be very clear on what this meant. It meant that a union could take over a federally regulated force without there being a vote by the member who worked in that workplace, that thousands of employees from any number of federal employers could be forced to pay dues and be represented by a union for which they never had a chance to cast a vote.

He said that this would be particularly alarming when it related to the RCMP, an organization comprised of members who put their lives on the line each and every day, in part to defend our democratic way of life. Therefore, it was a great irony that members of the RCMP would be deprived of the most basic democratic right, which was the right to vote in secret on whether to certify a union.

It is my sincere hope today that I will be able, through this debate and my arguments, to convince enough members of the government to demand the executive branch accept the Senate's amendment on enshrining the right to a secret ballot.

For example, Conservative Senator Nancy Greene Raine asked Senator Larry W. Campbell, who was appointed a Liberal Senator by Paul Martin in 2005 and was also an RCMP officer, about his thoughts on a secret ballot vote and if he was concerned that without a secret ballot vote, it might set up some ill will. Senator Campbell agreed with her statement. Senator Campbell also went on to say that it was wonderful to be an independent who moved second reading of Bill C-7 and then was able to actually talk about it.

That is refreshing to hear, that even the senator who introduced the bill, who in fact was a former Liberal before the senators were made independents, can step back, have an objective view, apply his sober second thought, and agree the legislation can be improved upon.

It was during his remarks at debate in the Senate that he noted the bill excluded the following from the collective bargaining process: law enforcement techniques; transfers from one position to another and appointments; appraisals; probation; demotions or discharges; conduct, including harassment; the basic requirement for carrying out the duties of an RCMP member or reservist; uniform, order of dress, equipment or medals of the RCMP. That is quite a list.

We know that through the Liberal government's motion on the Senate amendments, they have accepted the removal of all the exclusions to collective bargaining with their own amendment, that the government has increased the authority of the commissioner in an expanded management rights clause and that the government rejected a RCMP specific grievance procedure, which sends grievances through the RCMP act grievance system, unless it has to do with a collective agreement.

I look forward to hearing if RCMP members across the country find the government's response satisfactory. I also look forward to hearing from members of the House of Commons who sit on the public safety committee and from the senators who were involved in the legislation.

I would like to reiterate my support for the Supreme Court's decision and that I firmly believe RCMP members should be given a secret ballot to certify a union. I hope through today's debate that the government will reverse its decision of not accepting that amendment.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am surprised to hear the member opposite compare the work, the complexity, the responsibility, the critical nature of the RCMP and the safety and security of our country from coast to coast, d'un océan à l'autre, with a high school student council.

Our government disagrees with the Senate amendment that adds the requirement narrowing the options for certification to a single option, which the previous government introduced as part of its attack on the unions.

Bill C-4 would restore the choice. We have a mechanism for the Public Service Labour Relations Board to ensure whether the secret ballot or the card check system is in the interests of the members in a particular situation.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to go over the government's proposed response to the amendments to Bill C-7 from the other place. The government takes the responsibility to protect the safety and security of Canadians very seriously. We are also committed to supporting the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service. This is reflected in our proposed response to these amendments.

I have always been impressed with the professionalism of these individuals and their commitment to the communities they serve and protect. The members of the RCMP work with the community to prevent and resolve problems that affect the community's safety and quality of life. They are true role models and leaders. It is out of respect for these officers that the RCMP has introduced a number of measures to promote a healthy and respectful workplace. For example, in support of the 2014 amendments to the RCMP Act, several of the RCMP's human resources management processes, policies, and procedures were updated. Let me highlight a few.

The RCMP launched a new investigation and resolution of harassment complaints policy, which provides greater clarity and a single, streamlined approach for dealing with complaints. In addition, a process was introduced to address misconduct in a more timely and effective manner, and at the lowest appropriate level. Further, a new code of conduct was developed that specifically identifies harassment as a contravention of the code. This is complemented by the amended training curriculum that was put in place to specifically address respect in the workplace and harassment. Finally, an informal conflict management program was launched.

However, there is more. On top of these measures, in February 2016 the Minister of Public Safety 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 recommendations the commission made in 2013.

The commission has been reviewing the adequacy, appropriateness, sufficiency, and clarity of these policies, procedures, and guidelines. In addition, in July 2016 the Minister of Public Safety announced the appointment of Sheila Fraser as a special adviser. Her role has been to provide advice and recommendations to the minister regarding the application of various policies and processes by the RCMP.

The RCMP has made great progress with these initiatives, programs, and policies that it has implemented. These two reviews will be very valuable in helping the minister fulfill the mandate the Prime Minister handed him, to ensure the RCMP is free from harassment and sexual violence.

Bill C-7 builds on these good efforts to implement a robust labour relations regime for the RCMP. We believe we have addressed the concerns raised by the other place by increasing the scope of issues that can be bargained, while at the same time ensuring the operational integrity of the RCMP, which is so critical to its effectiveness.

Before I get to the details of our proposed response to the amendments to the bill, permit me to provide a bit of context. As we know, Bill C-7 creates a new labour relations regime for the RCMP members and reservists by amending the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. It has several key elements that reflect the clear preferences expressed by the RCMP members themselves during consultations with members held in the summer of 2015. Specifically, members were clear that they wanted a labour relations framework that provided for a single national bargaining unit, a union that is primarily focused on representing RCMP members, and the recourse of binding arbitration if a collective agreement cannot be negotiated.

Bill C-7 creates this very framework. If it becomes law, it would ensure that, if RCMP members choose to unionize, they will have an RCMP-focused, single, national bargaining unit, with binding arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism.

As it stands today, the labour relations regime that applies to the RCMP members does not meet all of these member preferences.

We introduced the bill in March of 2016. After a comprehensive committee study, the bill was passed with a number of amendments on June 21, 2016, and sent to the other place for review. We have taken the time to thoroughly analyze and carefully consider all of the Senate's amendments. Our proposed response addresses the most significant concerns of the other place by increasing the scope of issues that can be bargained. Our proposed response would align the labour relations regime that governs the RCMP with the system that governs other federal public service employees.

What is more is that our position respects the 2015 Supreme Court decision, which ruled that key parts of the RCMP labour relations regime were unconstitutional because they interfered with the rights of members to a collective bargaining process. That was the court decision in the case of the Mounted Police Association of Ontario vs. the Attorney General of Canada. Bill C-7 as originally proposed was meant to address this and our proposed response to the amendments would continue to respect this decision.

Our intent continues to be to provide the RCMP with a meaningful process for collective bargaining that takes into account the specific circumstances of the RCMP as a police organization.

Let us take a closer at how we propose to address each of the changes. Overall, members of the other place said the Bill was too restrictive with respect to the matters that could be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards. Issues such as harassment, transfers and appointments, for example, could not be brought to the bargaining table.

In this respect, the other place made several changes to the bill. It removed restrictions on what could be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards specific to the RCMP. It added a management rights clause to replace restrictions that seek to preserve the commissioner’s authority over human resource issues. The government agrees with removing the RCMP-specific restrictions on what may be collectively bargained.

Second, we suggest adopting a more targeted management rights clause than that proposed by the other place. Our focus is on the authorities the commissioner needs to ensure effective police operations. These two changes combined would have the effect of broadening the scope of what could be potentially incorporated in a collective agreement, thereby addressing the major criticisms of Bill C-7.

It would also ensure that the employer and any future RCMP member bargaining agent could engage in discussions on topics of importance to RCMP members and reservists who were excluded from the original Bill C-7.

Permit me to provide a few examples of subject matter that could be included in the collective agreement or in arbitral awards: first, general aspects associated with the appointment and appraisals of RCMP members; second, criteria and timing for conducting appraisals of RCMP members; and third, measures to mitigate the impact of discharges and demotions of RCMP members, including work force adjustment provisions.

As is the practice for other negotiations in the public service, Bill C-7 already allows for a wide range of other matters to be bargained and included in a collective agreement or an arbitral award. These include rates of pay, hours of work, and leave provisions such as designated paid holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, and parental leave.

Other amendments made by the other place removed restrictions that were consistent with restrictions that were already applied to other areas of the federal public service. Among these were restrictions preventing pensions from being bargained.

It also required a mandatory secret ballot vote for the certification of a bargaining agent representing RCMP members.

Finally, it expanded the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board.

However, our government does not agree with these changes, and we do not believe they are in the public interest. We propose keeping some limitations on matters that may be included in collective agreements and arbitral awards. Eliminating these restrictions would upset processes that have worked well for 40 years.

Since 1967, certain matters that are of broad cross-sectional impact across the public service have been excluded from bargaining and have been dealt with under other legislation to ensure the public interest is taken into account.

Take pensions, for example. Pensions for the rest of the public service are dealt with under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Pensions require a high degree of stability over time to assure pension plan members that their benefits are secure and will be delivered as expected. RCMP pensions compare favourably to other police organizations in Canada.

The federal government has traditionally consulted with employee representatives on pension issues, and is committed to continue this practice. In fact, when it comes to the RCMP, the government goes further. The RCMP Superannuation Act requires that an RCMP pension advisory committee be established.

This committee, which consists of RCMP regular members and representatives of RCMP senior management, makes recommendations on the administration, design, and funding of the pension benefits.

The RCMP is a national police organization, operating within the federal public administration. This is why the proposed labour relations regime for the RCMP was designed to align with the existing federal framework for labour relations and collective bargaining.

Let me now turn to the issue of certification.

Our government believes that there should be a choice between a secret ballot and a card check system. The secret ballot only system is restrictive. It is inconsistent with providing a fair and balanced process of certification, and properly recognizing the role of bargaining agents in that process. It also does not make sense to have the RCMP members subject to a different certification regime than everyone else, a more restrictive regime. It should be aligned.

We do not believe the certification of a bargaining agent to represent the RCMP members and reservists should be subject to a mandatory vote by secret ballot as the only option. In fact, our government's Bill C-4 puts the discretion of certification method back with the Public Service Labour Relations Board to decide whether there will be a secret ballot or a card check. The board will ensure the members' interests are reflected in the choice made.

Finally, we respectfully disagree with the changes that would expand the range of matters that could be considered by the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board.

There already are specialized grievance and appeal processes established under the RCMP Act to deal with such matters, so we feel it is unnecessary. In fact, such changes would undermine the Commissioner’s ability to ensure effective police operations.

I would also like to address the recent pay increase that RCMP members received. In April, the government announced a 4.8% total salary increase for RCMP members. With these salary increases, RCMP total compensation, including pensions and benefits, is in line with what is provided to the eight comparable police forces in Canada.

The comparators include local police services for the large majority of the Canadian population, in fact about 90%. The total compensation of an RCMP first constable is now 1% above the average of what is provided in these eight representative police forces. To give one specific example, the RCMP total compensation is now on par with the total compensation for Ontario Provincial police officers.

If RCMP members choose to unionize, Bill C-7 would provide a labour relations framework with the key features that the RCMP members have said they want. Under Bill C-7, future pay negotiations could occur with a single national bargaining unit that is focused on RCMP members.

Our government supports the dedicated and proud members of Canada's national police service. We continue to make progress in creating a labour relations framework that supports their collective bargaining rights. Our proposed response to the amendments of the other place will allow the employer and any future RCMP member bargaining agent to engage in meaningful discussion in good faith on topics of importance to RCMP members and reservists.

It is also in line with the government’s overall approach to restoring fair and balanced labour laws, and acknowledges the important role of unions in Canada.

In closing, let me express my gratitude to all the members of the other place who have helped in the development of this bill.

I would also like to acknowledge the hard work, and good work, of the House committee on public safety and national security. It gave the bill careful consideration and made amendments, which the government accepted.

While we do not accept all the amendments from the other place, its work has given us a better opportunity to improve Canada's labour relations regime for our RCMP and to serve the men and women who benefit from it.

Business of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the debate on the NDP opposition motion. Tomorrow morning the House will begin consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-37, the opioids legislation. Following question period, we will proceed to Bill C-7, the RCMP labour bill.

On Monday and Tuesday next week, we will return to debate on the bills just listed. On Wednesday we will resume debate on Bill C-4, respecting unions. In the evening, the House will consider the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development in committee of the whole.

Next Thursday, May 18, shall be an allocated day.

Free Movement of Members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In a moment I will request unanimous consent to propose a motion, but would like to give a minimum amount of context for the folks watching at home.

Bill C-4 that this House has debated and sent to the Senate is a bill that reversed an ideological attack on some of the fundamentals of unions from the previous government. I want to call to people's attention that the House has already passed the bill, and now the Senate has delayed and tried to gut this important legislation. I really feel it is time to finish the job.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I hope you would find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: “That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that the House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.”

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting afternoon. I know that the government House leader was hoping, on the government's behalf, to have a healthy discussion and debate about Bill C-4. It was a piece of legislation that rectified a number of wrongs--

Bill C-44—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of certain amendments to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the Income Tax Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Admissibility of Amendment to Motion Regarding Bill C-4—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the admissibility of the amendment moved on Friday, May 5, 2017 by the hon. member for Carleton to the motion respecting the Senate amendments to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

At the time, the Chair took the matter under advisement and committed to return to the House as quickly as possible with a ruling. Thereafter, the House leader of the official opposition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and the member for Oxford made interventions on the matter, and I thank them for having done so.

The main motion would see the House disagree to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4. The amendment is intended to do the opposite. Specifically, it aims to see the House agree to the Senate amendments.

No precedent of such an amendment could be found; thus, it is up to the Chair to rule on its admissibility.

Amendments are an integral part of the process of debate but are subject to certain limitations. Page 533 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: “An amendment must be relevant to the motion it seeks to amend.”

In this case, it is clear that the proposed amendment is indeed relevant to the main motion. However, House of Commons Procedure and Practice also states, on the same page, that an “amendment is out of order procedurally, if...it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion”.

I notice that the House leader of the official opposition has argued that the effect of adopting the amendment at hand in this case is different.

That being said, since there are no clear precedents allowing the Chair to accept the amendment, I would refer members to what is written at page 792 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and I quote:

The motion for the consideration of Senate amendments is itself open to amendment and subamendment during debate. Members opposed to Senate amendments may move reasoned amendments to them.

While the member has proposed an amendment that is not in keeping with the procedural criteria outlined earlier, other types of amendments could be envisioned that would be more in keeping with precedents and practice. Accordingly, I find the amendment to be out of order. Debate will therefore continue on the main motion.

I thank the hon. members for their attention.

Admissibility of Amendment to Motion Regarding Bill C-4

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am responding to the opposition House leader's intervention on the admissibility of the amendment proposed to the motion respecting Senate amendments to Bill C-4. Let me be clear. The motion rejects the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4. I submit that the amendment is out of order and procedural authorities and precedents support this argument.

Page 533 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

An amendment is out of order procedurally, if....

it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion....

The footnote that expands on the reference above is most relevant in this situation. It states:

Expanded negative amendments strike out all the words after “That” in a motion in order to substitute a proposition with the opposite conclusion of the original motion.

This is precisely what the amendment seeks to do: reverse the intent of the motion before the House. The appropriate course of action for members who oppose the motion is to vote against the motion. The procedural authorities and precedents are clear that the amendment is, indeed, out of order.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I understand that you are taking under advisement the admissibility of the amendment, moved by the member for Carleton, to the government's motion regarding the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, so I would like to very briefly offer my argument in support of the admissibility of that amendment.

At page 532 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states, “A motion in amendment arises out of debate and is proposed either to modify the original motion in order to make it more acceptable to the House”. I believe that the amendment would do just that.

The Senate has amended Bill C-4 to uphold a fundamental principle of democracy, which is that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority. Why the government wanted to take this away in the first place is perplexing, since it is proposing secret ballot elections in House committees.

At page 533 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states, “An amendment is out of order...if it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion.” Madam Speaker, I believe this may be the reason for your deliberations on the matter.

Would the defeat of the main motion to the Senate amendment made to Bill C-4 have the same effect as voting for the amendment proposed by my colleague? I believe that the answer is clearly no. If the government's motion were to be defeated, I would argue that nothing would happen. The government would need to come back with an alternative motion with a different proposition. However, if my colleague's amendment were to be adopted, both the House and the Senate will have adopted Bill C-4 in an identical form, and it would move to eventually receiving royal assent as amended.

As the Journals of June 6, 1923, at page 437, state, the Speaker ruled that an amendment to alter the main question by submitting a proposition with the opposite conclusion is not an “expanded negative” and may be moved.

This amendment indeed offers the opposite conclusion: that is, to accept the amendment made by the Senate that supports democracy. The government's motion rejects this democratic principle. Voting for or against the government's motion would have a different outcome than would voting for my colleague's amendment. Therefore, I ask that you, Madam Speaker, accept the amendment and allow this House to express its views on preserving a fundamental principle of democracy, which is that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority.

Canada Labour Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we have heard this issue debated over many hours. When we sat in opposition with New Democrats and the Green Party, we told the Conservative government then that its approach to labour was wrong. Today's Prime Minister said at that time that what the Conservatives were doing was wrong.

Canadians understand what this government is doing. We are trying to restore harmony within the labour movement and management, and Bill C-4 would go a long way in achieving that. Bill C-4 is a priority for this government.

As the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour has said, over 200 members of the House of Commons voted in favour of this legislation. Now the Senate has disagreed with the House. Given the many hours that we have debated this issue and given the fact that Canadians, using democracy, voted in support of this government's approach to labour issues, why does that member believe that we have to deal with this issue again today, when the bill has been so overwhelmingly accepted by Canadians and by the House of Commons?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, today I rise in defence of the secret ballot, a cherished tenet of democracy. I begin again, as I did earlier, by quoting the ruling by Justice Ivan Rand in the matter of Ford Motors versus the United Auto Workers–CIO of 1946.

Before I quote this passage, let me explain its importance.

The ruling of Justice Ivan Rand in 1946, in this dispute, has created the framework for our entire union certification and subsequent union financing policy right across the country, in all 10 provinces and in the federal jurisdiction. The resolution to which Mr. Justice Rand arrived was that all members of the bargaining unit at Ford Motors would be required to pay union dues, and the union would be required thereafter to provide representation to all of those workers. That union would sign collective agreements and would represent those workers in grievances. However, for the union to control that bargaining unit and act as its agent, it would have to secure majority support from the workers in the union. How one determines whether a union has the support of the majority of workers in the bargaining unit is what we are debating here today.

There are two options. One is a process called “card check”, where those who want to certify or take over a workplace go around with a petition and ask workers on the floor to sign that petition. When they have enough signatures to reach 50% plus one, they then go to the Labour Relations Board and say, “We have a majority. Please give us exclusive representational powers over the entire unit.” The other option is that once those signatures are collected, the board says, “You are now authorized to hold a secret ballot vote.” That is so that the will and volition of the members of that unit can express themselves, free of intimidation from either the employer or the aspiring union. The workers go into a secret voting box, mark their X, yea or nay, and if the union receives 50% plus one, it becomes the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit.

Now I will get back to Justice Ivan Rand. Among the very first pages in his ruling, he wrote:

But unguarded power cannot be trusted and the maintenance of social balance demands that the use or exercise of power be subject to controls. Politically this resides in alert public opinion and the secret ballot.

Why do we need a secret ballot? Why can we not simply collect public signatures and have those signatures trigger representation? The answer, of course, is that the only way for persons to truly exercise their will is to do so in the privacy of a walled-in voting booth where they select a yes or a no, without anybody finding out what they chose. To deny them of that opportunity means they could face potential consequences from people on either side of the question at stake. The result is that, out in the open where people are forced to put their names on a public list rather than exercising their will in private, they could experience bullying by the union, or the employer, for that matter.

We heard arguments today from the minister that holding a secret ballot is too costly, too time-consuming, and too difficult for those trying to unionize a workplace. Let us address each one of those objections.

She said it was too costly. She pointed out that under the current law in Canada, in a federally regulated workplace, an aspiring union not only has to collect signatures to trigger a vote, but then has to campaign to win that vote, that ballot boxes have to be arranged so that the vote can be administered, and then, of course, that workers within the bargaining unit have to take the time out of their day to mark an X next to their preferred option.

All of those things are true. They are true in the workplace and they are true in a general election to select this Parliament. It is true that it takes time to hold a general election. In fact, we shut down this entire Parliament for 36 days; 36 days while no bills are passed, no debates are held, no government announcements are made, almost no government business at the executive level is conducted. Why? Everybody is too busy devoting their time to this gigantic distraction, this gigantic enterprise that the Liberal Party condemns in the case of workplaces as democracy.

Is democracy time-consuming? Of course it is, but when we compare democratic nations to non-democratic nations, we find the return on the investment of that time to be spectacularly worth it.

Now, we know voting costs money. I think the last election cost something like a quarter of a billion dollars. Ballot boxes had to be purchased. Ballots had to be printed. Returning officers had to be hired. Halls for voting had to be rented. All of these things cost money. If the government's view is that we cannot spare any expense to administer democracy, that would be akin to arguing that we cannot afford elections in Canada. We know the Liberals tried to change the entire voting system to favour themselves without consulting the Canadian people through a referendum. In itself that action illustrated their hostility to the practice and institution of voting. Could it be that same contempt has spilled over into Canada's federally regulated workplaces?

Does democracy cost money? Yes, it costs money, and it is worth every single penny expended. It is worth it, because it is the only way to truly evaluate the will of those over whom a decision must be made.

Speaking of money, what is the decision that is being made when we certify a union in a workplace? We certify that union's ability to uphold taxation power over all of the workers in that workplace.

In Canada, people who work in a unionized bargaining unit must pay union dues, even if they choose not to be a member of the union, even if they object to the way in which that money is spent. Workers are not allowed to opt out of it. We are one of the very few countries in the free and democratic world that has this rule. Increasingly across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere, workers are given the ability to opt out of union dues, because those countries have freedom of association in the workplace. Here in Canada, in all 10 provinces and in the federal jurisdiction, a unionized workplace empowers the bargaining agent to forcefully collect dues against the wishes of many of its members.

The trade-off is that in this system, an exclusive majority representation, we must have at least a majority in order to enjoy that spectacular and unmatched privilege of collecting mandatory dues from people within that sphere. Remember that no other advocacy group in all of Canada enjoys these privileges. Even those groups that advocate to the benefit of other people do not have that power. Some say, ”Look, unions are fighting for the rights of the workers; therefore, those workers should pay for the value of that advocacy, lest we have free riders.”

The Canadian Cancer Society is fighting for cancer patients, but we do not collect mandatory union dues from cancer patients in order to fund the Canadian Cancer Society. People contribute to it through voluntary donations. I make this point not even to argue against mandatory union dues, but merely to point out the extraordinary privilege that our unions enjoy once they have certified a workplace. The least that we can entitle our workers to have is the right to vote on whether that privilege should be extended at their expense.

If the government is so worried about saving money by avoiding the enormous cost of holding a vote, is it not at all worried about the subsequent cost that certification imposes upon the workers who must pay for it? Of course, at the risk of being repetitious, I say that if the government believes voting is too expensive in our workplaces, why would Liberals not simply argue that voting is too expensive in our democracy? In fact, I am sure, if we look through the encyclopedia of tin-pot dictators, many have made exactly the same arguments that the government makes today to avoid facing electorates in their own countries.

Finally, they say a secret ballot makes things too difficult for the unions. If there were no secret ballots, then they would succeed at certifying more workplaces, more easily. In fact, when the minister's predecessor pulled a document out of my former department when I was minister of employment and social development, she said, “Aha, when there are secret ballots, there's a lower rate of union certification. Gotcha. Now we've found out what your agenda is.” It was the silver bullet. It was the smoking gun. “We have just proved that when workers are given the opportunity to vote, they make decisions that we don't like, and now we have proof of it, and because they make decisions we don't like, we are going to take away their power to make that decision in the first place.”

That is their idea of democracy. If people vote in a way that the Liberals and special interest groups which back them do not like, they will take away the right to vote altogether as an unnecessary costly and burdensome inconvenience. Democracy is not an inconvenience. It is the basis of our entire country.

Finally, the Liberals said that allowing a secret ballot would permit employers to exert undue pressure on workers. A secret ballot is secret. The employer does not find out which way the worker voted. Only under the regime that the government is trying to reinstate would the employer even know what an employee does with the certification decision. We on this side of the House are trying to free the worker from intimidation and undue influence by both sides in a certification dispute.

We see these four arguments: secret ballot voting is too costly, that it is too distracting, that it gives employers the ability to influence the outcome, and finally, that it makes it too difficult for a union to certify.

I guess the government could argue that the secret ballot is very dangerous in the election of Parliament because it might make it too difficult for Liberals to get elected in future votes. Right? It would just be too difficult. Therefore, let us find a simpler system that gives the Liberals the outcome they want. Of course, this is not about workers, unions, improving workplace dynamics, or rebalancing the scales. This is about taking power away from workers to give it to the powerful interest groups that helped elect the Liberal government.

We on this side continue to stand for the right of workers to vote to determine their own destiny, rather than having it imposed upon them by either the current government or any of the interest groups that elected it.

Therefore, I move, “That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word 'that' and substituting the following: the amendments made by the Senate to C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act be now read a second time and concurred in.”

I am thankful for the opportunity to make this motion. I will submit it to the dais, and I will give all members of the House the opportunity to reaffirm the Canadian commitment to democracy and one of its central pillars, the right of every man and every woman to carry out his or her franchise in secret, free from pressure and undue intimidation, and that we highly resolve that this democratic principle will exist across the land and in our workplaces.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, at one point during the minister's speech on the issue of the amendments to the Senate, I actually closed my eyes and thought I was in the Ontario legislature, listening to Kathleen Wynne speak about her relationship with the labour movement. It should be no surprise to anyone, because the same playbook that was used in Ontario is now being used federally to pander to the union movement. As an ex-union president, I can say that the issue of the secret ballot is a major concern among members of the labour movement, not necessarily the leadership.

The Senate sees the flaws in Bill C-4 with respect to the union certification. It has made this amendment, because the fundamental tenet of democracy that exists, not only in this country but in other democratic countries around the world, is the secret ballot. Why do the minister and the government have such contempt for a majority in the Senate who saw the flaw in this bill and want to reverse its decision?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I have said in the House on previous occasions, Bill C-4 was a very good first step.

As some members will remember, the previous government's omnibus Bill C-4 did a number of things, including decimating the health and safety for public sector workers. There is more than this; we need to restore important safeguards for workers, including safety safeguards which were repealed in the omnibus bill of the previous government.

Today is a good first step. I would like to hear from the minister on when we are going to see the repeal. You commented in your speech about the importance of safety. There are still things in legislation that need to be repealed. Today is a very good first step. We need to move on and start to get back to good labour relations and safer workplaces.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, with respect to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act, this House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join this important debate and to talk about Bill C-4, and most important, I am here to ask the members of this House to oppose the amendments introduced by the Senate to Bill C-4.

The previous government's bills, Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, were intentionally designed to weaken unions and to break down the labour movement in Canada. In particular, Bill C-525 has made it more difficult for Canadian workers to unionize and gives a significant advantage to the employer. By rejecting the Senate amendments, we can restore healthy labour relations between government, employers, and unions.

Our government believes that a healthy labour relationship leads to a thriving middle class and a strong economy. In 2015, Canadians were clear in their message that they wanted a government that values fairness, transparency, and collaboration, and they were clear that they wanted a government that puts the well-being of Canadians first.

The commitments we made to Canadians included working hard to restore trust in public institutions, including Parliament, by working with greater openness and transparency, by promoting more open and free votes, and by reforming and strengthening committees.

During the campaign, we also talked about the need to grow the middle class to ensure stable lives and income for Canadians, and we talked about the history and value of organized labour in ensuring those goals.

We committed to restoring a fair and balanced approach to labour relations, and Bill C-4 is an integral piece of doing just that.

We must restore balanced labour relations between employees and employers, and to do that, we need to support Bill C-4.

Our government respects and values unions and their workers, and we know that employers do too. Both employers and unions play critical roles in ensuring that workers receive decent wages and are treated fairly in safe, healthy work environments.

It is our labour laws that help ensure that there is a balance between the rights of unions and the rights of employers. Bill C-4, in its original form, is emblematic of our values and guiding principles.

Bill C-4 proposes to repeal amendments enacted by Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, which were introduced by the previous government.

I would remind the House that, as originally introduced, Bill C-4 sought to restore fairness, balance, and stability to the federal labour relations system. The purpose of Bill C-4 was to repeal amendments made by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Bills C-525 and C-377 have serious ramifications for workers and unions in Canada.

Bill C-4 proposes to return to the card check certification system that was in place before the introduction of Bill C-525 and also proposes removing the public financial reporting requirements for unions introduced in Bill C-377.

Bill C-4 was already debated, and I am pleased that it was adopted in the House of Commons in its original version. At third reading here in this House, 204 members voted in favour of Bill C-4, and that means that 72% of all the members who voted in this House were in favour of the bill.

It then went to the Senate, where honourable Senators debated it, discussed it, and amended it. In the Senate, the bill was adopted with amendments, which would affect the sections of Bill C-4 related to union certification and would ultimately lead to Bill C-525 remaining in effect, which, as I mentioned, would have detrimental effects on unions and their members.

Both of the bills addressed by Bill C-4 hinder positive employee and employer relationships, but Bill C-525 in particular has made it more difficult for Canadian workers to unionize. This is because Bill C-525 changed the union certification and decertification systems under three federal labour statutes.

The pieces of legislation addressed in Bill C-4 both impede positive employer-employee relations. Bill C-525 in particular has complicated things for Canadians who want to unionize.

The bill essentially made it harder for unions to be certified as collective bargaining agents and made it easier for bargaining agents to be decertified.

Prior to the amendments enacted through Bill C-525, federally regulated unions could use what was called a card check system for certification. If a union demonstrated that 50% plus 1% of workers had signed union cards, the union could be certified as the bargaining agent for those workers. A vote was only required if less than a majority, but enough to indicate a strong interest, signed: less than 35%, under the Canada Labour Code, for example. Bill C-525 changed that to require that unions show at least 40% membership support before holding a secret ballot vote and to require a vote even when more than 50% of workers signed union membership cards. It also made it easier for unions to be decertified by lowering the threshold to trigger a decertification vote to 40%, compared to majority support, which was previously required.

Unfortunately, we have seen examples of employers who will resort to any measure to deter their employees from unionizing. In effect, what Bill C-525 does is allow employers to know exactly when a union might be trying to organize in the workplace. The point is that as a result of Bill C-525, employers now have a powerful tool they did not have before to slow down or stop the union certification process. More generally, they have the ability to unfairly influence the collective bargaining process.

The card check system, whereby a union is certified by demonstrating majority support through signed union cards has been used successfully for many years in the federal jurisdiction and in several provinces. A number of unions, like Unifor and the Air Line Pilots Association, argue that it is fast, efficient, and much more likely to be free of employer interference than the mandatory secret ballot system brought in under Bill C-525.

Other interested parties, such as the Canadian Labour Congress, opposed the introduction of a mandatory vote system as set out in Bill C-525.

Bill C-525 made significant changes to a system that already worked. There was a democratic and fair system in place for employees to express their support for a union. As I mentioned, a card check system relies on majority support, a key democratic principle.

Bill C-525 is not problematic for just unions. It imposes some serious burdens on others as well. For example, there are real implications for the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. These boards are responsible for the full cost and logistical responsibilities involved in holding representation votes. Under these changes, the CIRB would be required to hold a vote to certify a union not just in the roughly 20% of cases where less than a majority of workers have signed union cards but in all cases, which would mean a fivefold increase in the board's workload.

Next is bill C-377. While I should note that the Senate's amendments do not affect the repeal of Bill C-377, I want to remind members of this bill so we can remember why repealing both of these bills is important.

Bill C-377 tips the scales in favour of the employer during the collective bargaining process. It requires labour organizations and labour trusts to file detailed financial and other information with the Canada Revenue Agency. This information is then made publicly available on the CRA's website. For example, during the collective bargaining process, employers will be able to know how much money the union has in its strike fund, giving the employer a substantial advantage.

Both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were expressly designed to disempower and weaken unions, giving significant advantage to employers. That is why our government introduced Bill C-4. It was to restore fair and balanced labour relations in our country.

Unions play a critical role in protecting the rights of Canadians and in ensuring a strong middle class. The right to organize must be protected in Canada. This government respects unions and workers and knows the critical role they play in ensuring a strong economy and a healthy society. Labour laws should ensure that there is a balance between the rights of unions and the rights of employers. How is it that Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 were passed if they do not support such a balance?

These bills were introduced and passed by the previous government because it ignored the long-standing tradition of tripartite consultation in this country. The tripartite consultation process ensures that employers, unions, and governments work together on issues of labour relations law reform and has long contributed to a stable labour relationship across the country. These relationships were not respected by the previous government. The introduction of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 demonstrated the disdain of the previous government for the strong value of the collective voice and effort the tripartite approach represents.

Our government believes that for policies to be fair and balanced, they must be developed through sincere consultation and engagement with all of our partners. A fair and workable labour management balance can only be reached when all parties—the government, unions, and employers—are part of the process. Our government is strongly committed to this approach.

Successful collective bargaining and fairness in the employer-employee relationship are the foundation of our economy. They provide stability and predictability in the labour force, two vital elements of a strong economy.

When labour law reform is required in the future, our government is firmly committed to ensuring that we ground policy development in evidence and collaboration through the tripartite relationship. This approach is critical to ensure that fair, balanced, evidence-based labour polices are developed through real consultation. They are essential for the prosperity of workers and employers, Canadian society, and the economy as a whole. They protect the rights of Canadian workers, and they help the middle class grow and prosper.

By repealing the changes made by Bill C-525 and Bill C-377, our government will help restore a fair and balanced approach to labour relations in Canada.

Let us be clear. Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 have diminished and weakened Canada's labour movement, and the way the bills were passed did not allow employers or unions to play their usual role in informing government's decisions.

Even though there were some differences of opinion about the merits of the changes imposed by Bill C-525, representatives on both sides of the bargaining table were highly critical of how the previous government brought in these changes.

It was not only our government that was concerned about Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Many stakeholders also expressed their concerns. There are ample concerns about the content of these bills and the damage they do to the labour movement and the fair and balanced relationship between employers and their employees.

As I have reminded all members, it is just as important to address how these changes came to pass. Employers and unions were not given the chance to help inform the previous government's decisions. It is no surprise that when policies are developed without proper consultation, as was the case with both of these bills, they often end up causing more harm than good.

Labour reforms are important. They have wide-ranging implications for workers, for unions, for employers, and for our country, which is why we must give the process of labour law reform the time and respect it deserves, and our government will continue to do so.

Successful collective bargaining and fairness in the employer-employee relationship are the foundation of our economy. They provide stability and predictability in the labour force, two vital elements of a strong economy. They are the basis for good wages and safe working environments, what should be basic rights for all Canadians, and they are the basis for good labour policy that affects millions of working Canadians.

The rights of labour unions and the workers they represent are also the rights of Canadians. As elected officials, we have a responsibility to protect those rights. We need to make sure that labour policy works in the best interests of Canadians. Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 cause real harm and do not represent a positive contribution to labour relations in Canada.

We need to continue working to ensure that we uphold the tripartite consultation process between employers, unions, and governments. By working together on issues of labour relations law reform, we will continue to have strong and stable relations across the country. By opposing the Senate amendments, we can restore fair and balanced labour relations in our country, which contribute to a thriving middle class and a strong economy.

We believe that, to ensure fairness and balance, the House must oppose the proposed amendments.

I ask all members to oppose the amendments introduced to Bill C-4 in the Senate and to give labour relations the respect it deserves.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-44, Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, is currently before the House.

Tomorrow morning, we will consider the Senate amendments to Bill C-4 on unions, and then move on to Bill C-44 after question period.

Next week, we have the pleasure of having two allotted days, one on Monday and one on Thursday.

Ideally, I would like to finish debate on the budget legislation next Tuesday in order to send the bill to committee for in-depth study. Bill C-4 will be considered on Wednesday, with the hope of sending it back to the Senate that day.

I do my best to provide a calendar that is as accurate as possible so that all members can prepare. From time to time, things need to change. As members know, we have had some important conversations in this place. We will always ensure that members have the ability to have those important conversations. That is why I would ask that we all continue working better together.

Rights of Workers

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals would not know the right thing to do if it jumped up and bit them.

A few years ago, my private member's bill, Bill C-525, received royal assent. The bill protected workers' rights by ensuring that mandatory secret ballot voting was used in the certification and decertification of a union.

Shortly after the Liberals took office, they introduced Bill C-4. This piece of poorly written legislation sought, among many other things, to remove a worker's right to a secret ballot vote. Clearly, Bill C-4 was a regressive attempt by the Liberals to gain favour with union bosses as it would have made it easier for unions to use intimidation tactics in the workplace during a union drive.

Yesterday, the Senate of Canada got it right where the Liberal government got it wrong. I am pleased that in the 43-34 decision, the Senate voted to amend Bill C-4 and keep the provision of a mandatory secret ballot vote in place.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the senators for their leadership on the bill and for protecting the rights of workers across Canada.

I would further encourage my colleagues across the way to accept the amendments as presented by the Senate, or get rid of this clearly misguided bill altogether.

Labour

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to point out that we expect that Bill C-4, which reinstates fairness and balance for labour across the country, will be passed in this House today on the one-year anniversary of a progressive new government for Canada.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off just by saying quickly that I know on these complex consular issues emotions can run high. I also know that by working together we can make progress on consular cases, and that I will continue to advocate for decorum and respect in the House. That is part of the conversation we have been having today.

Today we will continue the debate on the Standing Orders. Tomorrow, we will discuss Bill C-4, on unions, and Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Salaries Act.

Next week, we will all be working hard in our constituencies, and I wish everyone well and I wish them a happy Thanksgiving. Upon our return, we will have two opposition days, the first on Monday, October 17, and then on Thursday, October 20.

On Tuesday, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-16, the gender identity legislation, and also report stage and third reading of Bill C-13, concerning the World Trade Organization, provided the bill is reported back to the House tomorrow.

Last, on Wednesday, we shall call Bills C-4 and C-24 with the hope we can dispose of the union bill that day and have it sent to the Senate.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member as well and congratulate her on her new role.

This afternoon, we will continue with the Conservative Party motion. Tomorrow, we will proceed with Bill C-4, the union bill.

I have had discussions with opposition House leaders to find agreement on the handling of the debate at report stage and the third reading of this bill. I would like to thank them for their co-operation. We will continue this debate on Monday as well, in the hope of concluding third reading debate at the end of the day.

On Tuesday, we shall commence second reading debate of Bill C-22, which establishes a national committee of parliamentarians. I expect that debate to carry over to Wednesday and I hope we can conclude the debate on Friday so that we can get the bill to committee early next week.

Lastly, next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely relevant and if the member stays tuned, he will find out why it is so relevant.

The legislation members are proposing, the opposite of this legislation, is trying to change ideas that came forward from the Conservative Harper government, that ultimately threw labour relations off balance. This is exactly what the New Democrats are proposing to do in the private member's bill. Like the Conservatives, they did not do their homework with respect to that private member's bill. There is a process which all of us should actually respect.

New Democrats would agree with me on the point that the labour legislation that the government has brought in, in many ways is repealing legislation that the Conservatives brought forward. We made reference, for example, to former private members' bills C-377 and C-525. Those were bills that, I would argue, were brought through the back door of the House of Commons through private member's where there was no due process, no real consultation that had taken place, but it met a political agenda. It was not sensitive in terms of the labour movement, in particular, but many different stakeholders were not properly or adequately surveyed and the question was not put to them.

It is the same thing with regard to both political parties. I believe we witnessed a new attitude toward the way in which government is treating labour laws and Canada's public service. All one needs to do is to take a look at some of the things we have done in a relatively short period of time.

Today we are talking about Bill C-5, which is a piece of legislation that would deal with a change that the former Conservative government brought in, in the form of an omnibus budget bill, where it changed sick leave requirements. There were no consultations. It was the government's position and it was interfering. It upset a great number of people.

When we were in opposition, we cited the reasons why we had a difficult time, let alone that the change was packaged in a budget bill. We believed, at the time, that it needed to be changed and voila, today we have Bill C-5. It is rectifying a mistake made by the Conservatives. I have made reference to the two private members' bills which dealt with issues such as the certification and other issues related to public disclosure. Again, we witnessed no consultation that actually had taken place. We had Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 brought in by this government in order to balance the scale.

I believe that this government has successfully portrayed that it is not only a government that wants to see a different attitude but has been very effective at implementing it. We hope things continue to go well with regard to Canada Post. I remember talking to postal carriers with respect to the former government, and saw an attitude of distrust in the government of the day in terms of having an arm's-length approach. That government was prepared to take certain actions even if it meant going against Canada Post workers. Our government brought forward legislation like Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 to deal with the issues of our RCMP, and allow collective bargaining in order to allow the RCMP to become unionized.

These are all very strong, positive measures that have been taken in a relatively short period of time. The morale of our civil servants is so very important. That is one of the reasons we are seeing that new shift in attitude, and we will see dividends coming from that.

I had an interesting discussion not that long ago with a constituent who was reflecting about how the morale is, in fact, changing within our civil service. They look to Bill C-5.

I see you are trying to stand up, Madam Speaker. I believe I will be allowed to continue when the debate next continues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I disagree with the member's assessment. Our government has established a new attitude in its approach with unions. It is one of mutual respect. Whether it is Bill C-4, Bill C-7, the current legislation, Bill C-5, or the Canada Post potential strike and the negotiations around that, I wonder if she could reflect on those initiatives and at the very least acknowledge that in a very short period of time we have come a long way in establishing that new relationship.

Labour

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone in the House knows, we have had several very important national issues to discuss, debate, and vote on.

Bill C-4 was introduced second to the budget bill itself. It shows an indication of the priority that our government has to restore fair and balanced labour legislation.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is not good enough.

Bill C-4 is currently in parliamentary limbo. No one even knows what stage it is at. On top of that, the Liberals failed to include a number of elements.

For instance, this bill does not even reinstate the provisions on workplace health and safety. The previous government attacked workers' rights over and over again. The Liberals are quick to make promises to Canadian workers, but they have a hard time keeping them.

Will the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour finally do something and reinstate the provisions on workplace health and safety in Bill C-4 in order to protect Canadian workers?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, we are all anxious to get Bill C-4 through the whole parliamentary system. In fact, members have had an opportunity to speak to the bill. It has gone to committee. I had an opportunity to present. We are looking forward to actually bringing it back to the House, voting on it and making it a new law for Canadians.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the previous Conservative government attacked collective bargaining and weakened worker protection for the public service. In January, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour tabled a bill to repeal some of the Conservatives' anti-worker legislation. However, six months later and the bill is languishing.

It is not enough just to meet with public servants and pay lip service to undoing Conservative damage. When will the Liberals stop stalling and bring Bill C-4 back to the House?

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the third reading 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.

Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all RCMP members, both past and present, for their service and putting public safety before their own safety every day.

I had the opportunity to speak to the bill when it was at second reading. In my speech I stated that we supported Bill C-7 going to committee, where we would ask the government to amend its legislation to explicitly allow RCMP members the right to vote on whether to unionize through a secret ballot.

I respect the Supreme Court decision that RCMP officers are entitled to bargain collectively. The purpose of Bill C-7 is to satisfy this ruling and ensure the RCMP has the framework in place to bargain collectively if its members so wish.

If we look to the court's decision, we will see that employees' choice was the cornerstone. It is my opinion that a secret ballot is the most appropriate method of ensuring members have that choice free of intimidation and negative ramifications. A lot of young and new members may feel unsure about how they are supposed to vote when they are working in a ranked structure. Their management in the field detachments is older than they are and will have an understanding that is different from theirs.

Many members across the force want to see change. Speaking from personal experience as a former RCMP member for 35 years, people tend, especially in police roles, to be very private about individual concerns due to the chain of command structure in the police environment.

However, with a secret ballot, members would have the ability to vote honestly on whether they wished to unionize without fear of ramifications. That is why I believe it is very important that members feel secure in their decision that the choice should be something members are able to reflect on in private.

I will not be splitting my time after all, Madam Speaker. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has a lot to say. I will take the full 20 minutes and leave him 20 minutes on his own. I apologize.

As promised during the second reading of the bill, our Conservative Party requested in committee that C-7 be amended to require secret ballot certification. I was very disappointed that the government was unwilling to make this essential change. While I support the intent of the legislation to allow the RCMP to collectively bargain, I cannot support the bill as it is currently written. In the certification process for a bargaining agent, a secret ballot should be in place to allow all members to freely express their own opinions.

The Supreme Court judgment was silent on the method of choice in that it did not clarify whether the certification process should be by 50% plus one majority or by secret ballot, and that is too bad.

It has been argued by other members that the principle of a card check should be upheld as a sufficient and appropriate method for the RCMP, because that is how workers in the private sector and other federally regulated groups will decide on collective bargaining once Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act passes its final reading.

We do not use a show of hands or a public petition in our democratic elections, nor should we in the workplace, especially in this set of circumstances.

The right to peaceful association is granted to workers through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the unmitigated right union leaders feel they have to represent a particular workplace is not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This leadership is something that must be earned from the membership. Union leaders need to remember that representation is contingent upon workers placing their trust in the particular union of their choice through a democratic selection process. If union membership can elect its national president or any of its executives, directors, or leadership by way of a secret ballot, then in all fairness the workers should be afforded the very same right to have a secret ballot during the union certification process.

The right to be able to vote one's will free of intimidation or threat is a fundamental freedom and a right that should be extended to all workers. That is why when we were government we passed Bill C-525, the employees voting rights act, which required that certification of bargaining agents under the Public Service Labour Relations Act be achieved by a secret ballot vote based on the majority.

As noted earlier, Bill C-4 would reverse the procedures for the certification of bargaining agents that existed before Bill C-525; that is back to card check.

It has been argued that the RCMP, a public service, should not be treated any differently from other groups of workers. If it is good enough for every other federally regulated group to certify under a card check system, then it should be good enough for RCMP members.

I would like to remind my colleagues that the requirement to unionize was a consequence of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. It was not a consequence of the majority of RCMP members wanting this type of method to govern the way they protected themselves.

Following the court ruling, the government launched a consultation process that took place over the summer of 2015. It consisted of a survey, town halls and video conferences. With over 9,000 members completing the survey, there was a clear expression that they would like a regime designed specifically for the RCMP. They did not want to be lumped in with other civil servants.

The government needs to realize that the RCMP is a police force with a unique role and a unique chain of command structure. It is clearly different from other federally regulated groups and therefore should be, in my view, treated differently. The RCMP should have the ability to decide whether to unionize through the most appropriate method for it, not for another group. Members deserve a secret ballot.

Recognition of this should have been taken by the government in order to realize the RCMP was not like other federal departments. However, the Liberals have refused to amend Bill C-7 to allow RCMP members the right to vote on whether to unionize through a secret ballot. Therefore, I cannot support the bill.

I am extremely proud of the RCMP and its members, and to have served in that organization myself. Its members risk their lives every day and should hold great pride in serving Canada's police force. The least we can do is give them the right to vote, free of all intimidation, on whether to unionize.

Earlier today there was talk about the staff relations program, which was brought in in the early 1970s. Unlike some of the comments that were made with respect to it, it was a program wherein the representatives were voted in by the members. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, it negotiated in good faith with the management of the RCMP and Treasury Board, and it provided strong representation to the members. We remained in the top three police forces per pay and benefits for many years under that program.

Somewhere throughout the1990s and 2000s, when things got tight in all governments, the system declined and the pay and benefits of the members of the RCMP declined with the cuts made by the Liberal government and by the Conservative government afterward.

The unionization of the RCMP is profoundly different than any other union that has ever been formed in our country. It is a legislated requirement. I do not believe any member in the House could stand before me and tell me of any other union in Canada that was formed by a legislated order and members told that they had to vote but not it could not be a secret vote. Right off the bat that is intimidation by the government down to the people in the field.

Yes, there are groups in the RCMP across Canada that want to see a union. Other members do not want to see a union. However, the one thing they all will agree on is that they are at the bottom of the police totem pole when it comes to salaries and benefits.

I mentioned earlier that in the 1970s, 1980s, and even into the early 1990s, we were always part of the top 10 police forces. In fact, we did not even recognize the police forces that ranked 11 down to 50-something. We only looked at the top 10. Staff relations negotiated to keep us in the top, and it kept us in the top three for many years.

However, today the RCMP is ranked 56th. It is a sad situation for Canada's national police force to be number 56 on the totem pole of police forces. It should be in at least the top 10, and it should be in the top 3. It is Canada's police force. It is Canada's international police force. It is internationally recognized as one of the best police forces in the world. Yet we are only paying its members at the bottom of the scale.

It was mentioned earlier that a survey was done in 2015 to determine how the members of the RCMP felt about unionizing, or to determine if there were concerns with respect to people representing them in some type of bargaining. Approximately 9,000 members said that they needed a better system. That is only roughly one-third of the membership.

Clearly, from speaking to the members of the RCMP who are stationed in my community, many are uncomfortable about the fact that the RCMP may become unionized. They are proud to serve their country. A lot of them joined the RCMP for one specific reason: not to be in a unionized organization. They wanted the freedom to serve and not be controlled by an internal organization. Now they will have to vote in that regard.

I just want to state an opinion here, which is this. If they voted against it, would we be back here in another year and a half when another group challenges it through the Supreme Court?

I want to talk a bit about the discomfort of the members in the field. I am talking about western Canada specifically, eastern Canada, those members who are stationed in small detachments. I will give a brief example of what I mean by small detachments. It could be a detachment of two members, with a corporal in charge. It could be a detachment of six members, with a sergeant in charge. It could be a detachment of eight members, with a sergeant and then a corporal. That is how the rank structure works within the force. As the numbers go up, so does the number of NCOs in the detachment. A staff sergeant would command a detachment of 14 members with one sergeant. Once it gets up to 18 or 20 members, there are two sergeants and then there is a corporal.

However, the problem is that the members all work together to protect their communities, to protect the safety of the people within that community, and to protect each other's safety. They go out there, as mentioned earlier by other members, and they are the first ones at the scene. They are the first ones to go to the shootings, the violent assaults, the fatal accidents. They have to work hand in hand with each other. How can the Liberals expect a young constable in, for example, a staff-sergeant detachment with a staff sergeant, two sergeants and two corporals, to vote, when he has to vote in front of them on the way he thinks it should be, knowing they or the other constables that he works with may feel totally different from how he does? However, he has to stand up there and wave his little card and vote. Do they think he is not going to be intimidated? Members will be completely uncomfortable about voting on whether they should become unionized if they have to vote in front of their peers.

The thing that is very unique about the RCMP, and very similar to fire departments, is that the rank and file in the smaller detachments, going even to an inspector's detachment, which comes in at 50 people, or a superintendent's, which comes in at 100 members, work hand in hand. Those members deserve the right to decide whether they want to unionize, but they should also have the right to vote privately and secretly so that they do not put themselves in an awkward position with their peers, with their supervisors, and with their buddies with whom they work side by side, with whom one day, or even the next day, they may have to go back to back in a scuffle in a hotel. Sometimes it is hard. One member might be mad because a guy voted the other way and might not work as hard as she or he should.

It is a dangerous precedent that we are setting here. The RCMP, fire departments, and even police departments are unique. They are a proud lot of people who go out there to fight for their communities, to keep their communities safe, and to keep each other safe. However, their pride is individual. They are proud of serving an organization, but they want to make their important decisions on their own, and we would take that fundamental right away from them. We should not. We must look at that aspect of it.

I cannot support the bill, simply because we would not give the members of the RCMP the right to vote secretly on the decision of whether they want to unionize.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the floor for congratulating me on my office opening. I am also proud to represent his in-laws in the House of Commons.

With regard to the secret ballot, there have been a great deal of questions about that. We feel it is very important that the RCMP has the same bargaining provisions as the remainder of the public service. In fact, we feel it is very important that they fall under the same legislation, which would be Bill C-4. It is a consistent approach for the federal public service and we feel the RCMP deserves to have the same certification and decertification processes that are available to other public servants included in Bill C-4. In addition, some of the provisions can be debated when we deal with Bill C-4, but we feel that they need to be part of the same certification process.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George for sharing his time with me today.

I rise to speak to Bill C-7, but I would first like to thank all members of the RCMP for the incredible service they provide to our country not just from coast to coast to coast but across the globe. RCMP members are stationed all over the world, and they provide incredible service to our country and its residents. I am 100% supportive of the RCMP for what it does. I have tried to encourage my son to become an RCMP officer because of the pride and tradition the RCMP brings to our great country.

I would like to start with just how we arrived at this point, and my hon. colleague brought this up earlier. Since 1974, RCMP members have worked under a non-unionized labour relations regime in which the staff relations representative program, the SRRP, has been the only body recognized by management that represents the interests of employees. Despite the consultative role of the SRRP, management has the final word with respect to HR matters.

Section 2(1)(d) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act excluded RCMP members from unionizing. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada that the existing labour relations program violated the rights of RCMP members under section 2(d), freedom of association, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the ruling in January 2015, the government was given one year to pass new legislation. In January 2016 that deadline was extended to April 2016.

Bill C-7 would allow members of the RCMP and its reservists to collectively bargain. According to the bill's summary, it would create a process for an employee organization to acquire collective bargaining rights for members and reservists and include provisions that regulate collective bargaining, arbitration, unfair labour practices, and grievances.

The certification of unions speaks to the three requirements it must meet. It must have a primary mandate, the representation of employees who are RCMP members. It cannot be affiliated with a bargaining agent or other association that does not have a primary mandate of the representation of police officers, and it cannot be certified for any other group of employees.

Bill C-4, and this is what I find to be somewhat disturbing, would strip employees of their right to a secret ballot, and I will speak more on that later on. On the certification and decertification of unions, the combination of Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 would leave RCMP members without a secret ballot vote on future union drives, and it runs contrary to my view, that of giving workers the right to a vote that is free of intimidation prior to being forced to join, pay dues, or be represented by a bargaining agent.

With respect to collective bargaining, the bill would restrict what is up for bargaining. The collective agreement cannot include any term or condition that relates to law enforcement techniques, transfers, appointments, probation, discharges, demotions, conduct including harassment, basic requirements of RCMP duties, uniform order, or dress.

Given the unique nature of the RCMP, there are several aspects of that part of the bill that I certainly agree with, such as postings, uniforms, demotions, conduct, etc., and the increase in the size of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to 12 from 10 and the requirement that at least two of those members have knowledge of police organization. It also speaks to dispute resolutions and grievances.

As I said earlier, one of the things that is somewhat disturbing to me is the fact that there would be no requirement for secret ballots.

The legislation was really watered down when it came to Parliament. I supported it at second reading because I thought there was more work that could be done at committee, and I was very glad to see that there was. With respect to clauses 40 and 42 of the legislation, it was actually amended, in large part because of a push on the part of our Conservative members of the committee.

With respect to the legislation itself, obviously this side of the House respects the Supreme Court of Canada decision. One of the things we do not respect, and I do not personally respect, concerns the right of an individual to have a secret ballot. I was president of a firefighters' union for 30 and a half years. I can say that everything was done with a secret ballot. I believe fundamentally and principally in the right of an individual to maintain a secret ballot, especially in an organization like this, because one of the unique natures of being a police officer or a firefighter, particularly a young firefighter or police officer, is the fact that one is on a career path and often some of the decisions made can have an impact later, on every aspect of one's career.

As the member for Durham said, it is one of the fundamental tenets of democracy. All of us in this House have been elected as a result of a secret ballot. The Speaker of the House was elected on a secret ballot. Leaders of political organizations are elected on a secret ballot. The irony of this whole thing is that, as I stated in my comments, not only are RCMP officers charged with protecting us domestically and protecting Canadian interests around the world, but they often go into new democratic countries and are there to ensure that the democratic process is adhered to. I think that is sometimes forgotten around here. Many times, RCMP officers will go to new democracies in Africa and in Europe and will actually be there to ensure that individuals' right to a secret ballot, free of intimidation, free of coercion, free of influence is ensured in those democracies. The irony I find in this whole process is the fact that RCMP officers are not being given the very right that they go and protect in faraway lands. That to me is a complete irony.

Why is it that the Liberal government would ensure we are seeing not just a continuation of Bill C-4 in Bill C-7 with respect to the secret ballot? That is up to speculation, but if one were to be a good speculator, it could be nothing more than just political payback to the promises that were made to the union leadership with respect to the last election, which was that there were going to be secret ballots.

Having been a union president myself, I have first-hand experience and I can say that there is some element of intimidation, especially, as I said earlier, with young police officers or young firefighters. They sometimes do not know what they do not know. When they get into a situation where they are voting or are in a process of unionization, it can be intimidating for young firefighters. In my involvement in the firefighter movement, at one point I was intimidated by the process of which I was not really aware. The fundamental right of the secret ballot is something that is Canadian. It is not just something that belongs in this legislation for RCMP officers, but it is something that is fundamentally rooted in Canada.

There are several aspects of this legislation that we are supporting but one that we cannot support, based on a fundamental principle of having a secret ballot. The fact that it is not in this legislation is something that I cannot support. I support 100% our RCMP officers, the men and women who protect our country and Canadian interests abroad, but this legislation in some ways is flawed, and I cannot support it.

Labour

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Saskatoon West on her speech and of course her great interest in labour and labour issues. I would like to share with the rest of the House as well that we share a similar view on what transpired over the past 10 years and with the former Conservative government.

Canadians were not fooled. They understood fully that it was organized labour that was under attack under the last government. We saw that through many manifestations, through various pieces of legislation. We saw it in unprecedented use of back-to-work legislation. The legislation for Canada Post and for Air Canada come to mind. Even before those organizations were in a strike position and those unions were in a position that they could go out on strike, there was back-to-work legislation coming off the shelf to be presented in the House.

We saw that, and absolutely Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were directed at organized labour. With Bill C-377 we saw that constitutional experts said it was unconstitutional. We saw privacy experts say that it compromised the privacy of millions of Canadians. We saw provinces and territories say that it infringed on an area of their purview, that constitutionally it was their area of responsibility.

That was what we saw. That was the table that was set in the last Parliament by the last government.

Certainly what we have tried to do since October 19 and since the new minister came in on November 4 was to set a different atmosphere around work and labour. Certainly the current Bill C-4, not the old Conservative Bill C-4, was the first piece of legislation our minister presented. It was to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, within Bill C-4. I was very happy that it was the first piece of legislation the minister tabled.

Over the course of my experience over the last four years dealing with both employers and employees, one thing that has been consistent and that has been clear coming from both areas is that any changes to the Labour Code have to be done through a tripartite approach with labour, employers, employees, stakeholders, the provinces and territories—everybody involved.

They said that clearly with Bill C-377 and they said it with Bill C-525. We believe that the 2004 definition that was brought in by past Liberal governments is the right way to go, but that any change in the code has to be undertaken with a tripartite approach. I hope my colleague from Saskatoon West will understand that is the approach this government would take in changing the Labour Code. It would be under a tripartite approach.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the right to refuse unsafe work is one of the three basic health and safety rights achieved by the labour movement, along with the right to know about the hazards in one's workplace and the right to participate in workplace health and safety decisions. While procedures and circumstances may vary from province to province, just about all workers have the legal right to a healthy and safe workplace that allows, and in some provinces obligates, them to protect their safety by refusing to perform work they believe has the potential to harm themselves or others at the work site.

All workers in Canada have the right to work in a safe and healthy environment. Over the last decade, the previous Conservative government had undone many of the progressive advances for workers that had been achieved over generations.

On February 19, I asked the government why it had not tabled legislation to reverse some of the most egregious changes brought in by the Conservatives. Sadly, I did not get an answer.

On the health and safety front, the Conservatives used the omnibus bill, Bill C-4, to change the Canadian Labour Code to limit the rights of workers to refuse unsafe work, and also to do away with the independent health and safety officers, relegating their responsibilities to political appointees of the minister.

The bill also made sweeping changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act to prevent federal public service workers from filing complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It also gutted public service collective bargaining by allowing the government to unilaterally determine which workers would be deemed essential and therefore forbidden from striking, without recourse to a third party review.

During the debate about these changes, many individuals and organizations brought forward grave concerns.

Larry Rousseau of PSAC wrote that the changes that were stuffed into the 309-page budget implementation act would turn the clock back 50 years for labour relations.

However, no voice was more compelling than that of Rob Ellis, whose 18 year-old son, David, was killed on the job. On David's second day of work at a temporary position in a bakery, he was pulled into an industrial mixer that was operating without a safety guard and lockout. David lacked the experience to comprehend the dangers of the workplace.

Rob Ellis, his dad, said:

We should not assume that new workers have enough experience to recognize or categorize the level of danger of every workplace condition. New or young employees should be encouraged to say no to unsafe work. And when they do stand up and say no, they should not be subject to discipline if their complaint is rejected without investigation...

During the federal election, the parliamentary secretary's website promised that a Liberal government would, “Repeal the Conservative definition of “danger” in the Canada Labour Code that is regressive and sacrifices the health and safety rights of workers.” Why has the minister remained silent? Through the hon. parliamentary secretary, I simply ask the minister this. When will the government repeal these draconian measures?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in relation to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

Motions in Amendment

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to stand in this place and continue our dialogue and debate on Bill C-7. If members in this place were here when I made my initial comments and observations on Bill C-7, they will know about my history, both with the RCMP and the labour movement in Canada. To risk repeating myself, I will remind members exactly how the RCMP has touched me and my family over the years, and how the union movement in Canada has been involved a great deal in my life and my upbringing.

As I mentioned in my first intervention a few weeks ago, my mother's first husband was an officer in the RCMP who was killed on active duty at Depot, many years ago. Although I never met my mother's first husband, I learned of him very early in my childhood. My mother would tell me stories about who my father could have been. She told me stories about her husband and how much they loved each other and how much he loved his job with the RCMP. She told me about the unfortunate tragedy that took place when he was killed that one fateful day at Depot.

Since that time, I have always had a deep and very resolute appreciation of the dangers that every member of the RCMP faces each and every day of his or her life. Also, since that early childhood of mine, I have grown to know a great many RCMP members, many of whom are very close friends of mine, some who are current, some retired, and unfortunately a number who have passed on to a better life. However, universally all of those members shared common values: respect for the tradition of the force, and also a respect for democracy and democratic rights in Canada.

That is why, with all of the RCMP members whom I have spoken with since Bill C-7 was first introduced, to a person, they have all stated the same thing. They believe their right to certify if they wish should be conducted using a secret ballot. In fact, it is more a result of their being incredulous to the fact that Bill C-7 would not allow them that right.

My colleague from Durham who spoke just before me mentioned that many members of the RCMP perhaps were not aware of all the provisions in Bill C-4 and Bill C-7. They were not aware of the fact that they would not be able to cast a ballot in private. However, they are starting to become aware of that right now. Why the current government is hell-bent on its desire to prevent a secret ballot environment for our national police force almost defies credulity.

I can only think of one reason why that would be, and that is the fact that in the last election campaign, the Liberal Party campaigned aggressively to try to gather and garner the union vote. I can assure members that rank-and-file members of unions believe in secret balloting, union bosses not so much. The reason for that is that if they do not have a secret ballot when determining whether, for example, to strike, rank-and-file union members can be intimidated.

I know this first hand. I referenced the fact that I grew up in a union household. I did. My father was the head of the United Steelworkers of America, very active obviously in the union movement. In fact, he mentored Ken Neumann, who is now the national head of the United Steelworkers for Canada. At a very early age, I recall my father taking me to union meetings. I jokingly put to members that perhaps he was doing it for one of two reasons. One, he was honouring a commitment of babysitting that he made to my mother, or two, he hoped that his young son would grow up to be a union representative like him. If it was number one, he succeeded admirably. If it was number two, he failed miserably.

While I am certainly not a member of any union and I am certainly not enthralled with the union movement as a whole, I can say that I respect the right of any organization in Canada to unionize. I respect the role that unions have in Canada. I understand the role that unions play in Canada. However, there are many faults in the bill as it appears before us today. The biggest single fault is the inability of the legislation to allow for a secret ballot on determining whether or not to certify.

At the union meetings I attended as a youngster, I saw first hand how intimidation can work. Again, I use the example of a strike vote, where all union members would gather in a union hall, hear speeches primarily from their brothers and sisters in leadership positions within the union, and then would be asked to vote by a show of hands. I can assure the House that if there were any members in that union hall that did not want to strike for whatever reason, many times they would be afraid to express their true will by a show of hands. Why? Because some of their brothers and sisters would gather around them and let it be known in no uncertain terms the way in which they were to vote because the union leadership wanted a strike.

I think that is absolutely unconscionable. It was unconscionable then and it should be unconscionable now. Intimidation factors should not be allowed in any workforce or any workplace. By the same token, I will freely admit that there have been times in the past in certain non-unionized organizations where management would use intimidation factors. That also is unconscionable. That also should not be allowed but there is a simple way to fix this, to remedy this, and that is to allow secret ballots.

If an organization chose to unionize, so be it. It is the will of its members. However, if they chose not to unionize, those who voted against that very concept of unionization should not be then consequently intimidated and threatened because they voted against the wishes of their union leaders.

Across Canada, most provincial legislation allows for secret ballots in the workforce. In fact, they expressly prohibit non-compliance with that legislation. They make it a point to ensure that democracy is served. The ability for Canadians in any walk of life to express their will in a secret ballot environment is a basic tenet of democracy. Why the government fails to allow this in Bill C-7 and Bill C-4 is almost beyond belief. I can only go back to what I said just a few moments ago. I think this is payback to the union leaders who they courted during the election campaign of 2015 and that is shameful, absolutely shameful.

I have spoken with so many RCMP officers since Bill C-7 was first introduced because Depot used to be in my riding before the boundaries changed in the last election. Consequently, I am a frequent visitor at Depot and because of my history with the force, many members there know me and know me well. To a person, every single one of them was aghast at the fact that they would not have the right, if they decided to vote for or against union, to do so in private.

Bill C-7 is flawed. We know it is flawed and I believe the government knows it is flawed. That is what makes this doubly shameful. On the opposition side we will not be supporting Bill C-7. I cannot support Bill C-7 and I think it is a shame because other than that, the bill does contain provisions that are very helpful to the RCMP. However, that one provision disallowing secret ballots is something that is a deal breaker for me and I will certainly not be supporting the legislation.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock for bringing her experience to this House.

The best part of this new Parliament, from the viewpoint of the opposition, is not the fact that we are in opposition—that is certainly not a bright point at all—but the fact that one-third of our caucus is now made up of new members of Parliament.

The hon. member who just spoke brings to this House her experience as a municipal leader, particularly in Surrey, as she mentioned, which has the largest RCMP detachment in the country. In recent years, that has probably been the most tasked detachment in the country, working with challenges in violence and organized crime that the area has seen. Her leadership as mayor was recognized long before she joined this Parliament.

That is when the House of Commons is at its best. It is when we have members of this place rising in the House to talk on legislation, not just based on what is contained in it, but how it impacts the lives of those impacted by the bill, how the work done by the men and women of the RCMP in Surrey, indeed across the country, is fundamental to the safety and security of the people of Canada and the people of Surrey. They reached out to her council while she led council there, with concerns about crime and these sorts of things.

As a mayor, she also brought to the debate the impact of uniformed service on men and women in the RCMP, the rise of operational stress injuries, the risk of violence, the impact on family of stress, moves, and these sorts of things. I appreciate her addition to the debate here today, and her discussions with me and other members of our caucus on Bill C-7.

It is her input, and the input of members of the RCMP across the country, that is leading the official opposition to oppose Bill C-7. As members may recall at the introduction of this bill, I said we would try to work with the government on it.

Bill C-7 is in this place as a result of the Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada. This was a Supreme Court decision that stated that the staff relations program at the RCMP was not sufficient to meet the rights of association guaranteed to all Canadians under the charter.

That program was an internal HR function that tried to work between management and the men and women on the front lines of the RCMP. The Supreme Court decision stated that the exclusion of the RCMP from the Public Sector Labour Relations Act and its inability to associate violated the charter. Therefore, Bill C-7 is here before us.

In my speech, I said we would work with the government as a result of the timeline that the Supreme Court of Canada gave Parliament to provide a framework so the men and women of the RCMP could get union representation in a way that suits the needs of the unique role that the RCMP plays.

I remind members of this House, I remind the government, that it was given a lot of flexibility by the court. The key element, though, was that it had to be free from management. This type of collective structure needed that degree of independence from management. The rights and the freedoms of members needed to be reflected in that association, so their charter rights needed to be secured.

We did not see that in Bill C-7, from introduction through to committee. That is why our willingness to work with the government only had the legs to get us to committee. As my friend before me said, we were very concerned with clauses 40 and 42 in Bill C-7, which could have resulted in a patchwork of entitlements by RCMP members for health and occupational safety provisions across the country.

In fact, clauses 40 and 42 have nothing to do with the standing up of a collective bargaining agent for the RCMP. It was essentially the outsourcing by the federal government of workers compensation programs to provincial regimes. As each province is different, it would have taken a single unified national police force and created a patchwork of benefits for their members, depending on where Canada asked them to serve.

We had problems with that because the men and women in RCMP uniform go where their nation needs them, whether that be to Surrey or Shelburne, Nova Scotia, similar to when I was in the Canadian Armed Forces. They should not have to worry about a patchwork of benefits and occupational rights depending on which posting they are in.

Therefore, I am happy to say that the government did listen to the concerns that the official opposition expressed with respect to clauses 40 and 42. Ultimately, I am sure that some of its own members heard from members of the RCMP, and the government agreed to strike those provisions at committee. I applaud the government for listening.

I also will remind members that I had profound concerns that some members of the RCMP felt they were being told they could not speak to their member of Parliament and express concerns they have as Canadians with respect to a bill that would impact them and their family, which is Bill C-7. Once again, the government disappointed the opposition, and as the critic, I rose in the chamber to seek unanimous consent of the House and to show that, in the matter before us that would impact thousands of Canadians across the country, none of them should be intimidated or prevented from giving their opinion to their member of Parliament. Because there was that concern within the RCMP, I stood in this House and asked for unanimous consent to say that, as parliamentarians, we should hear from all members who are impacted by the legislation that we are debating and voting on.

Sadly, members of the government denied unanimous consent for such a basic fundamental democratic right. I was not asking for the ability of uniformed RCMP members to throw up bonfires and protests; we were asking for the simple democratic right for members of the RCMP, or their partners or spouses, to be able to come to their MP and express their concerns with respect to legislation. I was profoundly disappointed when the government denied that unanimous consent that would have encouraged MPs to hear from people in uniform on what is probably the most profound bill in generations to impact the RCMP.

While we are on the topic of democratic rights, the other thing I clearly said in my initial speech on Bill C-7 was that we expect Bill C-7 and ultimately the collective bargaining unit for the RCMP to be the subject of a vote by members. We said that in the House and at committee, and the government is not providing that. If we combine Bill C-7 and Bill C-4, it would take away that right from the members of the RCMP in one bill and be silent on it in Bill C-7. The government knows full well that it will pass Bill C-4, which will deprive RCMP members of a secret ballot vote, while concurrently passing Bill C-7. That is shameful. That is why we are opposing Bill C-7.

Why is it shameful? We are debating Bill C-7 as the result of a Supreme Court of Canada decision that asked Parliament to fill the void that the Supreme Court indicated was there with respect to the exclusion of the RCMP from the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Therefore, we are here debating Bill C-7 because of a court decision. However, no members of the RCMP have really been asked about this fundamental question. Why would the government fear giving a secret ballot vote to all RCMP members from Surrey to Shelburne on a collective bargaining agent that is in their own interest?

What is ironic is that every member of the 338 members in this chamber were elected to this place by a secret ballot vote. However, they do not feel it is the same to give the basic fundamental democratic right to vote on their representation collectively to people whom we give the important task of keeping Canadians safe in rural parts of Canada, where the RCMP is the only face of the government and of law and order in this country, those members whom we ask to keep us safe. It is a sad irony that the new government that runs on and talks about sunny ways is clouding those sunny ways by running Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 through the House at the same time.

While I am glad the Liberals listened to us and struck clauses 40 and 42 from the bill, the fact that they are not listening to the existing concerns my colleague from Surrey mentioned and not giving the men and women the right to vote means that Canada's official opposition, the Conservative Party, cannot support Bill C-7.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important not to let the debate on an amendment that has to do with harassment and whether or not RCMP members would be allowed to bring issues of harassment to the bargaining table to get derailed by questions of process on certification. There will be time for that in the debate. There has already been a lot of discussion around that. There will be more opportunity for discussion on that at third reading. I would say, because what I have not heard in the arguments of some members is why a different rule should apply to RCMP members than a rule that will be applying to other Canadian workers who are federally regulated. The place for that debate is on Bill C-4, which will be coming back to this House, as well.

I just want to take some time to talk about however RCMP members get there, if they get there, to have a certified bargaining agent, the question we are talking about now with respect to this amendment is what that bargaining agent is going to be able to bring up at the bargaining table. That is the important issue, I think, with respect to debate on this amendment. I am pleased to rise in support of this amendment.

Members who have been following this debate closely will know that I argued at committee, with the support of my caucus, for an even greater lessening of restrictions on collective bargaining because we think that is required, frankly, in order to honour the spirit of the Supreme Court decision that was taken.

That ruling, and we actually heard quotes from that ruling from the hon. parliamentary secretary earlier, says very clearly that part of the impetus and reason for the kind of freedom of association that is guaranteed as a charter right and thereby also guarantees collective bargaining is that workers have to be able to have a meaningful recourse within their workplace and a way to identify their own priorities to bring them to the employer and to have a shot, I guess is the really informal way of putting it, at having some success.

If we are going to bring a bill forward that says for all the many reasons that RCMP members sustain a protracted court battle in order to get collective bargaining—those have to do with workplace safety and health; they have to do with the topic of this amendment, which is harassment and conduct within the workplace—if we are going to bring forward a bill in response to that decision that says, “Okay, fine. You have collective bargaining on paper but you can't bring any of those issues to the table. We don't even care what your proposals would be. We don't care how reasonable they would be. Before we know even what they are, we're going to rule them out of court through this legislation”, I think it does a real disservice to the Supreme Court's ruling. I think it does a disservice to members. I think it is a reason why, if we do not relax these exemptions, we are going to see, in very short order, another court battle and I think, eventually, if the Supreme Court continues to rule in the spirit that it has been on collective bargaining, we are going to see that this law does not pass muster.

We have an opportunity now to move forward with a bill that would actually give RCMP members what they asked for and what they fought for going through the court process. I still think there is going to be a lot of problems with the bill because there are so many other exclusions, but we will support this amendment because it is a way of making a bad bill a bit better. It is a bad bill that has a strong likelihood of passing, because the government seems quite committed to passing it in its present form. Why it feels such a loyalty to this form is beyond me. This is actually the language that was pulled out of a previous Conservative bill. The Liberals have not minced words when it comes to criticizing the previous government in terms of its approach and thinking. The Liberals certainly have not held back criticism of the previous government when it comes to its approach to labour relations, and yet, the first bill that they are likely to pass does not just adopt that same philosophy and approach, but it is actually for the most part word for word, the very same bill that had been contemplated by the previous government going back as far as 2010.

This amendment is a way, I think, of trying to bring the bill a bit closer to the spirit of the Supreme Court decision. I do not think it gets us there, but I think it is important for RCMP members, if there is a possibility of passing this amendment, and I hope there is, that would at least make things a bit better for them.

I would argue, and have been arguing at length throughout this entire process, that it is not just an opportunity for RCMP members, but it is an opportunity for the institution as well.

We have heard, and we are hearing today from Liberals about how the government is engaging to work on the issue of harassment to improve it. The Liberals are going to study it, as if it had not been studied before, and then they are going to make some changes, and I wish them well in that. I am not saying that is not important. I am not saying that is not an important part of the process, but what we have here with the Supreme Court decision and now Bill C-7, if it is changed, is an opportunity to bring in a genuinely new approach, to do something genuinely different, and to allow RCMP members to bring their knowledge and expertise of the force and how things work on the ground directly into conversations with management.

For instance, if it is the case that Parliament is going to be addressing workplace issues in the RCMP, along with management, and it is going to take parliamentarians going around studying issues, having a law come before Parliament and passing through the two Houses in order to address workplace issues, then is it the view of the government that somehow that is a better process? Is that somehow more responsive than a process that would allow a union that represents RCMP members made up of the very people who are out there doing that good work on behalf of Canadians?

Consider the time that it takes for an issue to filter up through an organization, get media attention, and build public pressure for government to act on it, and it is unfortunate that with issues of sexual harassment in the RCMP we have reached that point. It means that it has become very bad. However, there are all sorts of other workplace issues that maybe do not get quite that bad, but are egregious nevertheless, which could be addressed by a process that actually consults the people who are doing the work on a day-to-day basis. We could get that kind of day-to-day or month-to-month feedback between the people doing the job and the people managing it.

If the model which says that somehow issues have to get bad enough that they come to Parliament and then we go out and study the issue, sometimes for years, and bring legislative changes, is how we are going to address issues in the RCMP, then I do not think one has to be a super business ideologue to say that this is just a bad model. It is just not efficient.

Why would we not want a model, if we are seriously trying to address an issue, that would allow us to get more frequent feedback, which does not involve a bunch of third party players, like parliamentarians, for instance, who do not have that day-to-day experience and do not have a real operating knowledge? It may be that some members of Parliament do have that experience, but if they do, it is a coincidence of the fact that a particular person was elected to represent a particular riding. I think it is fair to say that most of us in this chamber do not have that kind of day-to-day experience. Therefore, it seems wrongheaded to me to pretend that the most serious issues of the force are going to have to come here before they can be dealt with.

There is an opportunity here to have a better system, a system that RCMP members appreciate much more fully, that they are actually a part of. However, part of our point is that we should not prejudge the issue of whether this is going to work well or not. If it works well, it means that fewer of those issues are going to come to the House.

I would say that by the time issues get here, they have become really bad, and they are probably far away from being effectively solved. A good collective bargaining process can help us catch more of those issues early on, and resolve them in the workplace so that they do not have to come to Parliament to get fixed.

To the extent that this amendment, in a limited way, creates more opportunity for that kind of better process in respect of a certain issue, we are in favour of it.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member and I were watching the same Charbonneau commission. Personally, what I remember from that commission is that, unfortunately, people in positions of authority in the unions violated the fundamental rights of union members to have proper representation. That is exactly the opposite of what we saw.

On this side of the House, we believe that, in order to be free of any express, malicious influence on the part of the union authority over the newly unionized members, voting should be done by secret ballot. That way, everyone can vote in good conscience, in a voting booth, and make the choice that they are most comfortable with. Voting by a show of hands or by identifying oneself, while three or four people are watching each individual closely to see who is on their side, is not necessarily the best way to go about it.

On this side of the House, we believe that secret ballot voting is the best way to give people who want to form a union even more strength and authority, whether we are talking about Bill C-7 or Bill C-4.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House to speak to Bill C-7. Throughout the discussion I will take the opportunity to emphasize that, even though I am not my party's critic on the matter related to this bill, two aspects of it concern me in both form and substance.

Bill C-7 concerns the 28,000 officers of the RCMP, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

This bill was introduced in response to the Supreme Court's January 2015 decision in Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada concerning the right of association of RCMP members. In its ruling, the Court gave the government one year to introduce legislation on the right of RCMP members to associate. That deadline was extended to May 16, 2016.

That is the first thing that I wanted to mention, as it reminds us of what we are going through, in terms of form, with the study of Bill C-14 concerning medical assistance in dying, in which I was directly involved.

RCMP members were not unionized, but they were part of groups and could have discussions with the employer under the staff relations representative program, which was established in the 1970s. It worked quite well, but was challenged by some groups of RCMP officers in Ontario, which resulted in this decision.

For the benefit of the Quebeckers who are watching, I should explain that the RCMP is also the largest police force in eight out of 10 provinces. Ontario has the Ontario Provincial Police, Quebec has the Sûreté du Québec, and the other provinces have the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is the police force that enforces the laws and regulations and maintains order in Canada.

The Supreme Court ordered the government to pass legislation conferring on RCMP officers freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. It was at that point that our government, which was in power at the time, began to clear the way for drafting this legislation, under the direction of the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

Negotiations concerning freedom of association, agreements governing salaries, and all such matters do not happen overnight. We need to take the time to do it right, and that is the point we have reached.

The current government introduced Bill C-7. We agree on the principle of the bill, but we had some serious problems with some of the clauses. Therefore, during the clause-by-clause study, my colleague, the hon. member for Durham, who was a minister and who is a lawyer and a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, proposed some very important amendments.

Clauses 40 and 42, which were deleted from Bill C-7, had to do with health care and insurance provided to RCMP members. We are very happy that the government listened to the Conservative member for Durham with respect to deleting these two major clauses.

However, we do not recognize freedom of association in the same way as the government. We have two opposing views. This is also the case with another bill, Bill C-4, which I am working on in my role as employment and social development critic.

What is the government proposing, and what would we have liked to see in this bill? We think that the right of association must be recognized, but that it should be subject to a secret vote that reflects the will of the members. This is a key element that we enshrined in Bill C-525, for example, which was passed by the House of Commons. This bill required that union certification, specifically when a group of workers is trying to unionize, be subject to a secret vote.

The Conservative member for Durham proposed that solution, but the government rejected it. We find that unfortunate. The sacred right of association must be enshrined in law so that, when it comes time to negotiate, that right is even more powerful, legitimate, influential, and authoritative. In our opinion, the best way to ensure and assert that authority and strength is establishing secret ballot voting.

We know what we are talking about here in the House of Commons. We were all elected by secret ballot. That way of doing things dates back to 1874. It is nothing new. Elected members of the House of Commons have been familiar with the principle of the secret ballot for a long time. The same is true for elected officials in the provincial legislatures across the country. Every elected representative is elected by secret ballot. The same is true at the municipal level. Our mayors and municipal councillors are elected by secret ballot. That is a given in our democratic system if we want those representatives to be powerful, strong, authoritative, and competent.

A solid foundation is needed when it comes time to negotiate and discuss and to ensure that people are properly represented. On this side of the House, we believe that the best way to give unions or union representatives more authority is to allow them to obtain that authority by secret ballot. We encountered exactly the same problem with Bill C-4, for which I am the official opposition critic.

Bill C-525, which was introduced by a Conservative member under the former government, enshrined in law regulations regarding unions and the creation of unions through secret ballot. All of us here, who have decision-making authority, obtained that authority because the people in our ridings voted for us. We think that, when people need to create a union or an association, their representatives, who will be given the authority to negotiate with their employer, should be chosen through the same approach.

That is fundamental, but unfortunately, the government members decided to do otherwise. That is the government's decision to make, but it is not what we would have done.

We believe that that element is fundamental and that the government should have acted accordingly. The Supreme Court specifically stated, in the ruling handed down in January of last year:

The flip side of...freedom of association under s. 2(d) is that the guarantee will not necessarily protect all associational activity.

From our perspective, the best way to give the newly formed group the necessary authority is a secret ballot.

I want to be clear. We support the fact that the 28,000 members of the RCMP, for whom we have a lot of respect, are doing a great job. It is the most honourable job in our country. They deserve a lot, and they deserve it for our citizens. We have a lot of respect for them. We agree with the fact that they should have the right to negotiate as a group. We recognize that. That is why our colleague, the hon. member for Durham, did a tremendous job at the parliamentary committee by pulling out two clauses, clauses 40 and 42, which were not as good as they should have been.

However, we are at a crossroads. The government prefers to have a way of recognizing the group that will represent the RCMP members. We believe the RCMP members would be better served if the election of those people as their representatives was done by a secret ballot vote in front of the government. That is why we agree with the principle of the bill, but unfortunately, we will not be supporting Bill C-4 because the government has failed to recognize that the secret ballot vote is the best way to ensure the strongest dignity of this group to be represented.

Labour

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, what I can tell the House is that this side respects both unions and businesses and their ability to come to a deal together. They both are going to be at the table working hard for their collective responsibilities. Overall, 95% of all agreements are settled at the table, if they are fair and balanced. This is exactly what we are doing with our Bill C-4.

Opposition Motion—Political Fundraising Activities

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be hard to follow that, but I will do my best to make sure I say “lawyer” when it is appropriate and the other word when it is appropriate, but I cannot say that word in here.

This debate today provides us with a great opportunity to reflect and take stock as Canadians watch the debate. When Canadians elect people and send them to Ottawa they want them to behave in a way that shows our country both domestically and around the world in the brightest light and in the highest standard possible.

That brings me to what the motion is all about. The government party and members on the other side who are taking us to task for presenting the motion today are using words like “frivolous”. They are making comments like “this is a waste of time”. We are debating a rather substantive document, a document called “Open and Accountable Government”. It is written on the letterhead of the Prime Minister of Canada and it bears his signature. This is the standard to which this debate should be held. Members of the Liberal caucus who are rising are hiding behind a technical ruling from the Ethic Commissioner's office. I want to be very clear for people watching this debate at home how this works.

Currently, we have the Conflict of Interest Act and the code of conduct for ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and members of Parliament. This is administered by Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. She has come before the ethics committee many times. I chair that committee and I have been on that committee in previous Parliaments. We are reviewing the legislation, which has not been updated since the 1980s when it was first introduced. That is how archaic the legislation actually is. Every previous government owns the responsibility for not updating the legislation. I am not here to debate that with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I would agree that the time has come.

I remain cautiously hopeful and optimistic that the new bar that will be set in law will actually meet the supposed tests that the Prime Minister expects his cabinet ministers to meet. Here is the reality.

The witnesses who come to committee recommended by the Liberal Party, the NDP, and the Library of Parliament, virtually all are unanimous in saying that the Conflict of Interest Code and the Conflict of Interest Act which creates the code do not stand up in today's society. That bar is here. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the access to information commissioner, and the Commissioner of Lobbying, have lobbied many times to raise the bar on all of these things. The bar to which they say that the legislation should be changed is here.

The document that the Prime Minister has penned, which has been quoted from several times today, and I will quote it again, says:

Ministerial Conduct

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must act with honesty and must uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity and impartiality of government are maintained and enhanced.

It goes on:

Moreover, they have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny. This obligation is not fully discharged merely by acting within the law.

The law has a standard that is down here according to almost anybody that comes before the committee. That is not a high bar to achieve, and it is not a bar that I would hide behind if I were on the other side of the House today trying to defend.

This document, “Open and Accountable Government”, holds a lot of hope and optimism, but we have to remember who penned this document. This document is supposedly penned by the Prime Minister. My guess is that it was penned by somebody else who might have worked at Queen's Park, where they currently have quotas for ministers to achieve, fundraising targets, and was simply signed by the Prime Minister. Nonetheless, even if the Prime Minister did not pen it, he signed the document, so he is responsible for it.

Let us take a look at that particular individual's conduct. After becoming an MP, we know that the current Prime Minister accepted numerous paid speaking engagements while he was a member of Parliament, and for that he was admonished, not necessarily technically by the Ethics Commissioner, but certainly anybody with any credibility in the media or in civil society would look at that and say, “You are a member of Parliament. You have been invited to a speaking engagement and you are charging a fee?”

In one particular case, the current Prime Minister, in his capacity as a member of Parliament, actually billed a school board $780 for a limousine service to take him from Ottawa to Kingston and return him to Montreal. That is when he appeared at the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board, in Kingston, where he was paid $15,000 to be a speaker. That was in 2010. He was a member of this House. He probably had designs on being the prime minister at some point in time. My guess would be that one would have to do that at some particular point in time.

George Takach said, “MPs shouldn't get paid extra for public speaking, it's part of their job description”.

I certainly would not even dream of accepting payment in my capacity as a member of Parliament, which I have had the privilege of being for the last 10 years in this House.

Others go on to say, “I certainly wouldn't be, as a member of Parliament, receiving money for speaking out on matters of public interest”. This is something that we already get paid quite well to do.

We have to ask ourselves whether the Prime Minister actually believes the document he has penned or whether it is “do as I say, not as I do”. This raises a lot of questions.

He has charged $20,000 to the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario. Would the certified management accountants have anything to lobby the government about at some particular point in time?

He has also taken speaking fees from the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union. We all know about Bill C-4. The ink was not even dry on the swearing in of the ministers, then there is pro-union legislation on the table in the House of Commons. We have to wonder just exactly where the Prime Minister is at on this.

Notwithstanding the credibility of the author of the document, I still have high hopes, as chair of the ethics committee, that we can actually elevate the legislation we have here.

Then we come to the justice minister and the conflict of interest that is abundantly clear to everybody in the world except the Liberal caucus.

The government House leader just stood in this House and tried to rationalize her appearance, because he is able to get $700-a-plate fundraisers in his own riding, 20 minutes from his house, where everybody knows him. He is happy with $750. That is enough to have access. Then he asks us to equate that with an MP from Vancouver, who is unknown to most people in the greater Toronto area, charging $500 a plate for an invitation-only, not even advertised, event. That just does not pass muster. It does not make any sense at all.

We can compare that with some of the decisions, and I was hopeful before Christmas. My birthday is at Christmas, so I was feeling good—

Canada Labour Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that there are competing interests and that those competing interests are best dealt with in a tripartite fashion. It is not just the Liberals who are saying this. As has been quoted, union leaders and other stakeholders have said that we should not bring one-off, piecemeal legislation to try to change the Canada Labour Code. We believe that to be the case. If there are mechanisms through which we can move forward, then we are open to that.

If we look at Bill C-4, we see it is important to this Liberal government. It was one of the first pieces of legislation we introduced shortly after our tax break to the middle class, if I can give that an extra plug. That was our first piece and our first priority. We saw how important labour and unions are to our great nation and introduced Bill C-4 to rectify a wrong.

I passionately believe in the importance of our union movement through which great strides have been made not only in terms of better working conditions, better hours, and better rates of pay and benefits but also with respect to the many different social causes they have played a critical role in developing.

My door is always open, as are the doors of my colleagues. We are more than willing to meet with and do what we can to protect our workers. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to work with many individual members of the union movement. I have also worked with private business. I have had the opportunity to walk on picket lines in support of many workers who were constituents of mine and had to go on those picket lines.

I understand the importance of negotiations. People do not want a strike, whether they be employees or employers, because I would argue that we all lose. However, at times it is necessary. Until we can come up with a better way to deal with these issues, such as through a tripartite mechanism, we must continue to rely on the system that has done us so well over the years. Unlike the Conservatives or the NDP, if we take the politics out of the picture, I think we would have more harmony between labour and management, and that is good for Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to address this piece of legislation.

I am taking a different approach to this in the sense that I used to be the labour critic in the Province of Manitoba. I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in 1988. At the time, controversial legislation called “final offer selection” was being proposed. Hansard will demonstrate that even back then I was afforded the opportunity to give my thoughts and views on labour legislation. I found out early in the game how important it was for government not to use political IOUs in order to please one group over another.

The Liberal government introduced Bill C-4 because we passionately believe that the previous Conservative government used the back door through private members' legislation, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Many interest groups and stakeholders from both sides acknowledged that. Our government, through Bill C-4, is rectifying a wrong made by the previous Conservative government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour commented on the New Democratic Party using a private member's bill. I understand and appreciate the arguments put forward by the previous speaker, but I am suspicious of New Democrats when it comes to labour legislation. Like all Liberal members, I believe in the important role that unions play and we do what we can to support our union brothers and sisters as much as possible, but we believe in fair play.

Let me go back to the provincial election in 1988. It is important that we recognize that industries regulated for labour are primarily at the provincial level and the federal level deals with regulations. Howard Pawley hoped to become the premier of Manitoba at that time. He sat down with a number of union representatives and said that, if the NDP formed government, it would bring in anti-scab legislation. He and the NDP made that commitment. The NDP became government, but it did not bring in anti-scab legislation because the then NDP premier argued that it would not be fair after all. Instead, the government brought in final offer selection legislation in its place. That is when I was elected, in that 1988 provincial election, and when the Conservatives took office they repealed the legislation. We sat until two o'clock in the morning in committee debating this. Many union and non-union members made presentations about the benefits of final offer selection. We often heard about the NDP compromising itself by promising to bring in anti-scab legislation but not doing that and instead coming in with final offer selection. Final offer selection was disposed of because the numbers were not there for the Liberals and the NDP back then.

In 1999 the NDP regained power. One would have thought it would have brought back final offer selection or anti-scab legislation, but it did neither.

The reason I say this is that I believe we have to be more honest with our union brothers and sisters. We have to look at what is in the best interests of Canada as a whole and look at the worker and how we can enhance our workforce. We need to not only look at how we can protect workers but look at the different sides sitting at the table. That is what is being proposed by the Government of Canada today. The NDP and Conservatives have used labour relations as a wedge issue time and time again at the cost of union workers. I have witnessed it.

I did not tell the House about an amendment that was put forward by the Liberal Party in 1990, which would have improved final offer selection, but back then New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to get rid of it.

I am familiar with the games that are played between the Conservatives and the NDP with respect to labour. We in the Liberal Party are saying enough is enough. We need to do what is in the best interests of the worker and the—

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise as a seconder of this private member's bill, Bill C-234.

In the debate about a previous government bill, Bill C-4, government members often spoke about restoring balance to Canadian workplaces. We in the NDP were happy to support that legislation, because Bill C-4 did restore balance to certification and decertification. However, we need to be concerned not only about the right to join a union, but also about the right to bargain collectively.

An essential component of balance in collective bargaining is that in the rarer cases where this process breaks down, both sides bear a cost. Employers do without labour while employees must do without their wages. That puts pressure on both sides to keep negotiating to try to find a solution.

The use of replacement workers, or scabs, destroys that balance by allowing the employer to continue functioning as though there is no labour dispute. We have had far too many cases in Canada of employers demanding severe concessions, locking out workers or provoking a strike and then using scabs rather than negotiating in good faith. One problem with replacement workers is that they can be used to prolong labour disputes.

Another problem with replacement workers is that they increase the likelihood of violence. The process of moving scabs across a picket line into the workplace inevitably puts the employer's security forces in confrontation with the picketers. That is a recipe for bad things. However, even where replacement workers are not actually used, the implicit threat of scabs gives management an unfair advantage in bargaining.

There is a very simple solution to all of these problems: to prohibit replacement workers during legal strikes and lockouts. This is not a new or theoretical solution. Two provinces already have anti-scab legislation and the longevity of anti-scab legislation in those jurisdictions is a testament to its success and to its workability. Quebec has had anti-scab legislation for nearly 40 years. British Columbia has had anti-scab legislation for nearly a quarter century. In both of these provinces, anti-scab legislation was introduced by social democratic governments, but importantly, it has been continued by subsequent right-wing governments. At the provincial level, parties of both the left and the right have accepted anti-scab legislation.

What about at the federal level? What did we hear from the Liberal Party? The member for Cape Breton—Canso tried to tell us that the existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code, which do not actually prohibit replacement workers, constituted some kind of appropriate balance. However, I have already explained why the real balance involves pressure on both sides during a strike or lockout. The real way to achieve balance is not to have replacement workers in the equation at all.

The sense in which the member for Cape Breton—Canso considers this a balance is that we have two sides, unions and employers. Unions obviously would like to have anti-scab legislation and employers would not want to have it. He does not think we can make a change without consensus.

That is kind of a disingenuous argument, because the current situation confers a huge advantage to employers, so of course employers will never voluntarily agree to give that up. It is for parliamentarians to make a balanced assessment, and that is exactly what this private member's bill proposes.

We have also heard the argument from the member for Cape Breton—Canso that this is the wrong process, that we do not want to look at one little element of the Canada Labour Code, that we need to do a big tripartite review of the whole thing. Well I say, bring it on. There has not been a review of the Canada Labour Code since 2006.

The member for Cape Breton—Canso kept saying that we could not do this without a big review of the Canada Labour Code. Let us have that review of the Canada Labour Code. I think that would be very much welcomed on this side of the House. That is not really a good argument not to adopt this legislation. Let us go ahead with the review.

I think the main argument, though, from the member for Cape Breton—Canso is this notion that it is somehow inappropriate to put forward this proposal as a private member's bill. Leave it to the Liberal Party to turn a question of principle into a question of process.

The grain of truth in this argument is the idea that the previous Conservative government did abuse private members' bills to make changes to labour legislation without the same sort of scrutiny that would have been applied to government legislation. That is a criticism that one can make of a government; and if the present government wanted to put forward legislation to implement a ban on replacement workers, obviously, we in the NDP would support that legislation. The reason we are putting it forward as a private member's bill is that the Liberal government has not put it forward on the order paper. It missed the opportunity to do so in Bill C-4. The only way we have to put forward legislation is through private members' bills.

We heard the statement from the member for Cape Breton—Canso that this is introducing a change by the back door. It is not the back door. It is the only door to which the NDP has access. Therefore, yes, from a process point of view, one could criticize a government for sneaking things through with a private member's bill. One cannot criticize the third party for introducing legislation through a private member's bill, because that is the only way it can happen.

What did we hear from the Conservative Party in this debate?

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, first, suggested that anti-scab legislation was inappropriate in the federal sector because the federal sector includes these strategic industries, these kinds of essential services.

The way to protect essential services is not to allow replacement workers. If there are specialized people off the job in telecommunications and that is causing a national emergency, the solution is not to bring in scabs. The solution is, hopefully, to negotiate some sort of essential service protocol with the union. If that is not possible, there is the possibility of back-to-work legislation under the Canada Labour Code.

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent said, well, we don't want to spend all our time in Parliament passing back-to-work legislation, which is kind of a funny statement because the Conservatives were content to spend all kinds of time doing that in the last Parliament when they were in power. Every major strike or lockout in the federal sector during the previous Conservative government attracted back-to-work legislation from that party. Therefore, I do believe that comment is a little out of context.

One of the concerns that the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent raised was that anti-scab legislation could force employers to settle labour disputes quickly.

I would suggest that is a feature, not a bug, of this private member's bill, that we actually want to bring these disputes to a quick resolution. One of the problems with replacement workers is that they drag things out, and one of the benefits of this legislation is that it would speed things up.

We also heard an argument from the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent that there were more labour disputes in Quebec versus Ontario and that this is all the fault of anti-scab legislation.

I would suggest there is a whole bunch of other differences between Quebec and Ontario, including the higher rate of unionization in Quebec. I think the better comparison is what happened within Quebec when anti-scab legislation was passed, because actually it was passed in response to an extremely high level of very disruptive labour disputes in that province, and the introduction of anti-scab legislation led to a great reduction in the number of strikes and the amount of picket-line violence in Quebec. Therefore, I actually see this as a good model for the federal sector.

In conclusion, I urge members to support this private member's bill, which they are free to do because it is a private member's bill. They do not have to vote on party lines. This legislation would strengthen the right to strike while, at the same time, producing fewer, shorter, and less violent labour disputes.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to hear that the member for Cariboo—Prince George has already made up his mind that he will not support Bill C-7, when it has not even been at committee to be reviewed.

That is very surprising, considering his very eloquent remarks on the rich tapestry and history of the RCMP and his deep regard for the force. Our government is respecting the Supreme Court ruling that respects the right to be represented in bargaining by members and reservists of the RCMP. That is exactly what this bill is all about.

The member's concerns are actually about another bill, Bill C-4, which rolls back changes that were made without any consultation in Bill C-525, which force a one-size-fits-all bargaining system on the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

Why would the member want to have that when he wants a vote free of reprisal? That is exactly the purpose of the board. They have the tools to ensure that. They have options for how to implement a vote. They have laws that support freedom from any intimidation. They have penalties and orders they can impose. They review a vote, whether it is done by card check or mandatory vote or secret ballot.

Why would the member want a one-size-fits-all approach, prejudge this very important legislation, and be prepared to vote against legislation that is all about respecting the members of the RCMP?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to follow my respected colleague from Yellowhead. I thank him for sharing his time with me. I have a lot of respect for his 35 years of service with the RCMP, protecting the communities of Canada. We are truly blessed to have him as a member of our caucus.

I want to talk a bit about some of the history. I am very blessed to have a deep RCMP and North West Mounted Police history in my riding. Fort Macleod was founded in 1874. It is now a world-renowned museum of the North West Mounted Police in western Canada. Downtown Fort Macleod is now a provincial historic site, as well as the museum.

There is also the Alberta Provincial Police Building in Crowsnest Pass, which was founded in 1918. I am proud to say that the Conservative government last year contributed $100,000 to the refurbishing of that police building to protect its history. I am sure many people in the House would like to know that Corporal Stephen Lawson was killed in front of that building in the early 1900s. One of the accomplices in the shooting was Florence Lassandro. She was convicted of that murder and was the first and only woman ever hanged in Alberta's history. That is a bit of Alberta's history.

Today I want to speak to Bill C-7 and say how disappointed I am. On this side of the House, I think many of us are. We continue to have to challenge the Liberal government on the importance of accountability and transparency when it comes to unions, and specifically the importance of a secret ballot.

Members of the RCMP are out there each and every day protecting our rights, freedoms, and democracy. Why we would miss this opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with them and protect their democratic rights when we have the chance to do so? It is disappointing that we are missing this opportunity by putting forward Bill C-7, which does not include the right to a secret ballot. I ask the Liberal government to send the bill back in order to add the provision of a secret ballot for RCMP members when they are faced with the question of certifying or not certifying as a union. Simply put, that is the right thing to do.

Members of the RCMP have the democratic right to a free and fair secret ballot vote when certifying or decertifying as a union. Every one of us in the House was elected by way of secret ballot. Every member of a provincial or municipal government was elected by way of secret ballot. It only makes sense that we would be sharing that democratic right, not a privilege but a democratic right, to a secret ballot at all levels, including unions.

A secret ballot is the cornerstone of our democracy and at the heart of Canadian values. However, the Liberals have shown again, with the combination of Bill C-7 and Bill C-4, that they see the right of secret ballot as being somehow obsolete. In many cases, they do not feel it is democratic at all, which I find to be extremely disappointing and concerning.

This is about balance and creating a fair environment in which workers are the ones making the choice they feel is best suited to their needs. The Supreme Court decision speaks to allowing the RCMP the right to associate for the purpose of collective bargaining. I think all of us in the House agree and support that decision. However, we also believe this is an opportunity to vote by way of a secret ballot, and it should be a privilege and democratic right that the RCMP have this opportunity.

Our specific intent has always been to preserve the democratic rights of Canadian workers through increasing public confidence in unions, but to have that confidence, unions must operate in a transparent and accountable way without any chance of undue influence or coercion. Our democratic system was designed with a secret ballot as its keystone, specifically to maintain the integrity of the vote and to allow citizens to cast their ballot in privacy.

The jobs minister has made it very clear that she does not believe in the integrity of a secret ballot. In fact, she has said that the card-check system is a much more democratic way to certify or decertify a union. Recently in committee meetings, she was asked why she would repeal Bill C-525, which gave employees the democratic right to a secret ballot to decertify or certify a union. I will read this quote, because her answer was very clear on where she and the Liberal Government stood in terms of democracy. She said:

The card-check system is a perfectly democratic way of gauging support as it ensures that an absolute majority of employees support the union, not just those who come out and vote.

Our jobs minister is saying in committee that a card check system is a much more democratic way to decide if a majority of people support whatever that issue is, over a secret ballot; that somehow when people actually show up to vote for something, they are not legitimate.

I went around door-knocking in my riding, as I know most of the members of this House did as well in their ridings as we went through the election period. If I went up to ask those people for their vote right then, and I wanted them to sign a piece of paper that would tell me that they voted for me while I was standing there, how often do you feel that person would be telling the truth?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today in the House in support of Bill C-7. In my riding of London North Centre we have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Ontario headquarters, as well as the RCMP London, Ontario, detachment. Combined, these two offices have approximately 165 regular members. Many of these individuals are my constituents, I am proud to say.

I am also very proud of the work these men and women do in keeping Canadians safe every single day. With that in mind, it is an honour to be part of this debate and take a stand on behalf of these men and women, the members and reservists of the RCMP.

The bill before us today would uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. I emphasize that point. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years, but it is a right that has been denied to the members and reservists of the RCMP, individuals who over the last 143 years have contributed so much to our proud, strong, and free nation. This bill would rectify that issue.

This bill is a clear and reasoned response to the Supreme Court ruling of January 16, 2015. The court affirmed in that decision that subsection 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests”. The court also determined that, “the current labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence”.

It is, therefore, my pleasure to support this bill today, a bill that would provide RCMP members and reservists with freedom of choice and independence from management while still recognizing their unique operational reality. The bill in question is a product of careful consideration of the result of consultations with key stakeholders, the first with regular members of the RCMP and the second with provinces, territories, and municipalities that have policing agreements with the RCMP.

Bill C-7 has a number of important features, and I will now go over those briefly.

It would provide for independent binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process for bargaining impasses. Consistent with other police forces across this country, the members of the RCMP bargaining unit would not be permitted to strike. This was the strong preference of those who participated in the online consultation.

The bill would also provide for a single national bargaining unit composed solely of RCMP members appointed to a rank and reservists; and the RCMP bargaining agent, should one be certified, would have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. Again, regular members showed clear support for these provisions. The bill would also exclude officers appointed to the ranks of inspector and above from representation. Finally, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board would be the administrative tribunal for collective bargaining matters related to the RCMP bargaining units, as well as grievances related to a collective agreement.

The bill before us today is consistent with our government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country. Take, for instance, Bill C-5, which would repeal division 20 of Bill C-59, the 2015 budget implementation bill, tabled last April by the previous government. It gave the government the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system onto the public service.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act was originally passed in 1967 to give public servants the right to unionize and bargain collectively. It is fundamental to ensuring collaborative efforts between the parties and to improving the ability of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

I have many public service employees in my riding of London North Centre. In fact, I had the privilege of meeting with some of their leadership last week and they made their voices heard.

The actions of the previous government, to unilaterally impose a new sick leave system while ignoring the collective bargaining process, were unfortunate and disrespectful. Our government made it clear that we would not be party to an approach that disregards the process of negotiation between an employer and a group of employees aimed at reaching agreements on the terms and conditions of employment. By repealing those provisions in Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process.

We believe in collective bargaining, and the bill before us today honours our belief in this right. We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations, yet over the last few years, many fundamental labour rights have been rolled back. We can just look at Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which would both have changed how unions could be certified and decertified, and would place new financial reporting requirements on them.

These bills were passed without the traditional employer, union, and government consultation process used for labour relations law reform. The result has been that it is now more difficult for unions and the employer to bargain collectively in good faith. We need, instead, to ensure that workers can organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in safe environments. To that end, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour has also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Bill C-4 would restore the procedures for the certification and the revocation of certification of bargaining agents that existed prior to June 16, 2015. This bill would also amend the Income Tax Act to remove the unnecessary requirements on labour organizations and labour trusts for the public reporting of financial information.

As hon. members are well aware, legislation is already in place to ensure that unions make such financial information available. Section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, for instance, requires unions to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge, rendering these additional reporting requirements unnecessary. The bill before us today is very much in keeping with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations.

Engaging in collective bargaining is a right long exercised by all other police forces in Canada. The bill would respect that right while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force. It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they are due.

I again would like to thank those members and reservists of the RCMP for their dedicated service to our country. I am proud to have such a strong RCMP presence in my riding of London North Centre, and I commend RCMP members for going to work each and every day with the safety of all Canadians and all Londoners at the forefront of their minds.

To that end, I ask all members to show their support for members and reservists of the RCMP by voting in favour of this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, let us recognize why we have Bill C-7 here today. The Supreme Court of Canada made a decision, which in essence said that the RCMP, an institution we all hold very dear to our hearts, needed to be afforded the opportunity for a free collective bargaining process. As a result, we have legislation now that has been introduced by the Government of Canada in recognition of how important it is that we bring it about in a timely fashion.

I understand the passion with which the member talks with regard to Bill C-7, with respect to the secret ballots. I heard many of the very same arguments with regard to Bill C-4.

I would suggest to the member that he allow these pieces of legislation to go to committee—as Bill C-4 has done and, hopefully, Bill C-7 will to too, in a timely fashion—recognizing what we really want to do is to set the framework, something that RCMP officers from coast to coast to coast have been asking for: that is, the ability to have negotiations, free negotiations, which is something in which the Supreme Court has concurred.

I wonder if he could say something positive about the legislation, in terms of answering the call of the RCMP officers in responding to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your assistance in trying to get the chamber a bit more organized and a little more quiet. It is surprising, because normally when I stand to speak, members opposite hang on every word. Therefore, it was a little disturbing to find out here were actually people in here who did not want to hear what I had to say.

When I concluded my remarks prior to question period, I was in the midst of telling all members about my history both with the RCMP and the union movement in Canada.

In particular, with the union movement, I mentioned that my father had been a senior member of the United Steelworkers of America. In fact, he was the western Canadian head of the United Steelworkers of America. He trained Ken Neumann, who is now the national director of the United Steelworkers of America. Therefore, I have an intimate knowledge of the union movement.

I recall my father taking me on many occasions to union meetings when I was extremely young. I was never quite sure why he did that. It was either (a) an obligation to his babysitting commitment to my mother, or (b) he was trying to groom me to become a labour representative or a union representative such as himself. I suppose, in retrospect, if it was (a), he succeeded admirably and if it was (b), he failed miserably. Nonetheless, I was able to observe many things from these meetings, these union gatherings that I went to.

One of the things that struck me then, and it certainly continues to strike me now, was the fact that in the vast majority of cases whenever there was a vote to be cast at a union meeting, whether it would be a local union or a larger gathering of several locals, the votes were always public. I could not understand that because it was obviously something I believed, even at a young age, should be done in private.

However, I also saw the opposite side of the coin. Back in the early 1960s, when my father tried to organize a potash mine in Esterhazy, Saskatchewan, he would go down there with sign-up cards and get a number of the workers in the potash mine to sign those cards indicating their preference to unionize. Then mysteriously many times those same members who signed the cards would no longer be employees of the potash mine. That was pure and simple intimidation.

I have seen intimidation on both sides of the ledger. I have seen union members try to intimidate or at least pressure some of their fellow co-workers into voting in a particular manner. I also know from first-hand experience that there has been pressure or intimidation from the management side to try to influence the vote of certain workers. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable. I think most Canadians would feel that it is as an affront to natural law, justice and absolute fairness in our country.

The way to get over that is to have secret ballots. If union members were able to vote freely according to their own beliefs in a secret ballot environment, intimidation would not play a part in this whole process. Management would be unable to successfully intimidate employees and union members would not be successful in their attempts to pressure or intimidate their co-workers. A secret ballot provides the assurance that each and every union member would be able to vote according to his or her conscience and beliefs.

For example, I have seen strike votes where unions get together in a public environment and have to vote in favour or against a strike by a show of hands. I have experienced first-hand some very serious pressure and intimidation. If union leadership wanted a strike to occur, many members who may not want to go on strike because they could not afford to take a reduced salary or no salary at all because they had mouths to feed at home were pressured into voting in favour of their union boss' belief that a strike was necessary. That is just as unacceptable as it would be if a management member tried to intimidate a union member or a non-union member into voting against certification.

Secret ballots are the absolute solution and remedy to intimidation factors and tactics, yet the government feels otherwise. For some reason, it feels that Bill C-525, which allowed for secret balloting in either union certification or decertification, should be eliminated, and that changes to the Canada Labour Code should be enacted to go back to the old system. I just cannot agree with that.

Although I believe that Bill C-7 is on balance a worthwhile piece of legislation containing many provisions that I agree with, the single provision that does not allow for secret balloting on union certification or decertification makes it impossible for me to support this particular piece of legislation.

One could present an argument that the system that had been in place for many years, whereby petitions could be circulated and cards could be signed, was appropriate, but that certainly has not proven to be the case in the majority of provinces across Canada. In fact, in the majority of provinces in Canada, provincial legislation deems that secret balloting must take place in determining either certification or decertification of a union, and it has worked well.

I could also share from personal experience conversations I have had with many rank-and-file union members, who have expressed the same concern that I am expressing here. That is the concern that their right to vote freely has been impugned because of the public nature of voting within many unions.

Let me simply say that while Bill C-7 contains many solid provisions that support the RCMP and allow its members to determine their own fate when it comes to unionizing and enjoying collective bargaining, and while many of those provisions we heard earlier in debate today protect them on many other fronts, the single fact that the government does not see fit to allow one of the most fundamental tenets in democracy, that being secret ballots, makes the bill absolutely unacceptable to me and, I am sure, to all my colleagues on the Conservative benches.

What is the solution? Frankly, we have heard many times before, particularly from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, that committees should take a stronger and more active role in determining legislation in the House. That is a position that I quite frankly agree with and support, so we are simply asking that an amendment be considered at committee that would allow this legislation to include the provision of secret balloting before being presented to the House in its final form for third reading.

I do not know whether or not that is going to happen. I could assume that we will be able to move an amendment at committee and engage in debate, but I sense quite strongly that despite the nice words from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, their committee members will be whipped and instructed to vote against any amendment that the official opposition brings forward in relation to secret ballots.

Once again, I find it extremely difficult to stand in this place and completely understand how the government can defend that position. Every one of the members of this place was elected by secret ballot. The Speaker of this chamber was elected by a secret ballot. Why is that the case? Why is it the case that in almost every democracy in the world, secret ballots have been accepted as the norm?

The government seems to be swimming upstream. Why is it doing that? Quite frankly, Liberals made a number of commitments during the election campaign to try to gather support from the union movement in Canada. One of them was the commitment to repeal Bill C-377 on union transparency. Another was the commitment to repeal Bill C-525, which allowed for secret balloting in certification and decertification votes. I suppose on the one hand they are keeping their commitment to their election campaign platform, but it flies in the face of any democratic institution that we know of.

There is one other point I would like to make. It has been mentioned several times in today's debate, primarily by the member for Spadina—Fort York, that Bill C-7 does not disallow the RCMP from determining their own fate when it comes to a secret ballot. He says they are able to vote for certification or non-certification by secret ballot if they so choose. That is factually incorrect. Because of the provisions in Bill C-4, which would change the Canada Labour Code, the RCMP would not be able to choose a secret ballot even if the majority of their members wanted to.

I would point out to the member for Spadina—Fort York that what he is attempting to state in the House as fact is absolutely just the opposite. It is factually incorrect. Because of Bill C-4, the RCMP would not have the ability to vote for union certification, should they desire, in a secret ballot environment.

I would suggest to all members of this place that if one were to poll rank-and-file members of the RCMP and simply ask them if they would be in favour of a secret ballot process for certification, the overwhelming majority of non-union members would state yes, they want a secret ballot.

I have spoken with a great many RCMP members. I have spoken in the House of my close relationship with many members, both present and past. Almost to a person, when speaking about the certification process, these members say they would prefer to have a secret ballot.

I firmly believe that whenever the vote is taken, RCMP members will vote to unionize. I have that sense. However, they should be allowed to do so in a secret ballot environment. They should be allowed to cast their ballot knowing full well that no one else will know how they voted. That is something we hold dear in our country, yet the Liberals seem to be reversing the democratic will of the people by forcing public notification of union certification votes. That is unacceptable.

I can assure the House that on this side, unless an amendment is brought forward to reverse the secret balloting provisions and allow for secret ballots in union certification votes, members on the Conservative side will be voting against Bill C-7, and for good reason.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley East. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise today to support Bill C-7.

It is an honour to participate in this debate and take a stand on behalf of the members and reservists of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Today's bill seeks to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years. RCMP members and reservists have been denied that right, despite the significant contribution they have made to our proud, strong, and free nation over the past 143 years.

This bill would remedy that situation. It is a clear and reasoned response to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on January 16, 2015. The court indicated that section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests. The court also stated that the current RCMP labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence.

I thank the Supreme Court for this ruling, and I am pleased to support this bill today, which would give RCMP members and reservists freedom of choice and independence from management, while recognizing their unique operational reality.

This bill was carefully developed from the results of consultations with key stakeholders. The initial consultations were held with regular members of the RCMP. The next round of consultations were held with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that have police service agreements with the RCMP.

There are some important features in Bill C-7. First and foremost, it gives access to independent, binding arbitration when the bargaining dispute resolution process reaches an impasse. Members of the RCMP bargaining unit will not have the right to strike, which is in line with the practices of other police forces across the country. Those who participated in the online consultation expressed a strong preference for this provision.

The bill will also create a single, nation-wide bargaining unit composed of RCMP members appointed to a rank as well as reservists. In order to be certified, an RCMP bargaining agent must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. Once again, regular members have shown strong support for these provisions. The bill also provides for the exclusion of officers at the inspector level and above from representation.

Lastly, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will act as the administrative tribunal for matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, as well as grievances related to the provisions of the collective agreement.

This bill is in line with the government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country.

Consider, for example, Bill C-5, which repeals division 20 of Bill C-59, the bill to implement budget 2015, introduced in April of last year by the previous government.

That bill gave the government the power to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act was first introduced in 1977 in order to give public servants the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Guaranteeing collaborative efforts among the parties is crucial, as is increasing the capacity of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

Our government has made it abundantly clear that it will not adopt an approach that does not take into account the bargaining process between an employer and a group of employees who want to reach agreements on employment conditions.

By repealing these provisions of Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process. We believe in collective bargaining. Today's bill is a testament to our belief in that right.

We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations. Unfortunately, over the past few years, many basic labour rights have been undermined. Consider Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, for example, which will change how unions can be certified or decertified and will impose new financial reporting requirements on them.

Those bills were passed without the usual consultation process involving employers, unions, and the government, which was used during the reform of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As a result, it is now harder for unions and employers to bargain in good faith.

Instead we must ensure that workers are free to organize, bargain collectively in good faith, and ensure safe workplaces for themselves. To make that happen, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced a bill to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Bill C-4 restores the bargaining agent certification and decertification processes that were in place before June 16, 2015. Bill C-4 also amends the Income Tax Act to get rid of unnecessary requirements imposed on labour organizations and labour trusts with regard to releasing certain financial information.

As hon. members know, legislative measures are already in place to ensure that unions make that financial information available. Under section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, unions are required to provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge, which makes these requirements to produce extra reports unnecessary.

In conclusion, the bill being introduced today is consistent with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations. Every other police force in Canada has had the right to engage in collective bargaining for quite some time. This bill respects that right, while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force.

It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they deserve. To that end, I am calling on all hon. members to show their support for RCMP members and reservists by voting in favour of this bill.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-7 as well. I concur with my colleagues who have just spoken in regard to the bill.

I had the opportunity, particularly in the Kamloops area at an earlier age, to work with RCMP members who actually came down to play hockey with us when I worked in that fair city a number of decades ago. The Sakaki family gave me my first opportunity to work in that community and the opportunity to play hockey with these RCMP officers as well.

Of course, that is what we are talking about here today: the RCMP officers who give their lives and work every day on behalf of Canadians to keep us safe.

I rise to express my concern regarding Bill C-7. The bill has some worthwhile and necessary provisions, as has been pointed out by some of my colleagues. However, the bill continues the Liberal tradition of bowing down to unions at the expense of democracy and increasing the power of unions at the expense of some of their members.

The Supreme Court's ruling makes it clear that the current regime must be updated to give RCMP members a greater voice in their workplace while continuing to ensure public safety. However, certain provisions of the bill are thinly veiled attempts to pay unions back for their support of the Liberal Party in the last election. These are the parts of the bill that make it a bit undemocratic.

I stood in the House recently to speak against Bill C-4, the Liberals' first attempt to pay unions back for their election support. That bill was also deeply problematic. The timing of it could not have been more opportunistic in its attempt to make the government's own collective bargaining process easier at the expense of union members.

That bill also scaled back one of the most important rights of union members, the right to participate in a secret ballot on certification and decertification. We have seen that the government side is afraid of the words “secret ballot”. What are they afraid of? I would suggest they are afraid of democracy in this situation.

The combination of Bills C-4 and C-7 leaves RCMP members without a secret ballot vote on future union drives. The result is that a certification could occur through intimidation and undemocratic pressure tactics that are all too common with card check certifications. I believe strongly in giving workers the right to a vote that is free of intimidation prior to being forced to join, pay dues to, or be represented by a bargaining agent.

As I have said before, each hon. member in the chamber is here today because the residents of their constituency chose to give them the most personal thing they possess, their vote. As elected members of the House, our highest duty is to defend the democratic principles that brought us here. The secret ballot is the highest pillar of this process. It is difficult for me to believe that the Liberals have the nerve to argue that the public servants at the front line of Canadian safety do not deserve their democratic rights.

Our brave RCMP officers put our safety above theirs every day when they get up to go to work every morning and on every shift. Without them, we would not have the rule of law. Without them, many resolutions of the House would be worth less than the paper they are printed on. Without them, Canada would not be the free and safe society it is today.

Our RCMP stand up to criminals in some very dangerous situations. They rely on their fellow officers, their team, to have their backs. Bill C-7 would make our RCMP officers less safe by encouraging internal conflict within RCMP ranks. It creates a climate in which a union could pressure its members into signing their support. This really means that certain RCMP members would be pressuring others, creating tension and conflict while destroying trust.

Just as during election campaigns when candidates ask for the support of their friends and neighbours by going door to door, union representatives would be able to go from officer to officer to try to pressure them. As many of my hon. colleagues will know from their own campaign experience, while many people mean the support they promise, many people on the doorstep just want us to get off the porch or do not feel comfortable saying no to our face.

Without a secret ballot to guarantee the rights of public service workers, the potential for intimidation is disturbing. We all know that the potential for workers to be intimidated by their unions is very real. While this is serious for all workplaces, it is even more serious for a workplace where having a cohesive team can mean the difference between injury and safety, between life and death, as in the RCMP.

The Liberals have absolutely no good reason to get rid of this vital check. With the beginning of an important process for the RCMP, the Liberals are creating a problem that is easily avoided. The card check system allows for a workplace to be unionized without letting all employees have their say, and it could proceed with a significant portion of the workers having no idea that it was even going on.

The bill narrows the democratic legitimacy of an RCMP union and scales back the rights of our hard-working officers to select their representatives and determine their own fate. While the current regime must change to give our officers a greater voice in the workplace, it has to be done correctly.

As the bill currently stands, it sends a terrible signal to the men and women who keep us safe, a signal that the Government of Canada does not care about them. During the Conservatives' time in government, we consistently supported the RCMP, CSIS, and public safety agencies by modernizing legislation and increasing their budgets to ensure that these forces had the right tools to keep Canadians safe.

Right now, the RCMP is contracted to provide police services to eight provinces and over 150 communities. As the representative of the constituents of Brandon—Souris, I represent several such communities. I know first-hand the quality and professionalism that many RCMP officers of my riding bring to the job every day. We depend on them to keep us safe and are grateful to them for their service.

Not only would the officers in my riding have fewer democratic rights as a result of an unamended Bill C-7, but the communities that pay for their services would experience great hardship if labour costs dramatically increased. If our small communities cannot afford policing, nobody wins.

I echo my colleagues in supporting an amendment to this legislation that would explicitly allow RCMP members the right to vote on whether to unionize through a secret ballot.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to support Bill C-7.

It is an honour to participate in this debate and take a stand on behalf of the members and reservists of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP.

Today's bill seeks to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is a right that other police officers in Canada have enjoyed for many years.

However, RCMP members and reservists have been denied that right, despite the significant contribution they have made to our proud, strong, and free nation over the past 143 years. My personal connection to this file dates back to almost the very beginning. My great-great-grandfather, Dr. Louis Paré, was the assistant chief surgeon for the Royal Northwest Mounted Police.

This bill will remedy that situation. It is a clear and reasoned response to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on January 16, 2015, which indicated that section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests”.

The court stated, “The current RCMP labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management’s influence.”

I thank the Supreme Court for this ruling, and I am pleased to support this bill today, which would give RCMP members and reservists freedom of choice and independence from management, while recognizing their unique operational reality.

This bill was carefully developed from the results of consultations held with key stakeholders. The initial consultations were held with regular members of the RCMP. The next round of consultations were held with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that have police service agreements with the RCMP.

There are some important features in Bill C-7. First and foremost, it gives access to independent, binding arbitration when the bargaining dispute resolution process reaches an impasse.

Members of the RCMP bargaining unit will not have the right to strike, which is in line with the practices of other police forces across the country. Those who participated in the online consultation expressed a strong preference for this provision.

The bill will also create a single, nation-wide bargaining unit composed of RCMP members appointed to a rank as well as reservists. In order to be certified, an RCMP bargaining agent must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members.

Once again, regular members have shown strong support for these provisions. The bill also provides for the exclusion of officers at the inspector level and above from representation.

Lastly, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will act as the administrative tribunal for matters related to the RCMP bargaining unit, as well as grievances related to the provisions of the collective agreement.

This bill is in line with the government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour rights in this country. Consider, for example, Bill C-5, which repeals division 20 of Bill C-59, the bill to implement budget 2015, introduced in April of last year by the previous government. That bill gave the government the power to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act was first introduced in 1977 in order to give public servants the right to organize and to bargain collectively. Guaranteeing collaborative efforts between the parties is crucial, as is increasing the capacity of the public service to serve and protect the public interest.

Our government has made it abundantly clear that it will not adopt an approach that does not take into account the bargaining process between an employer and a group of employees who want to reach agreements on employment conditions.

By repealing these provisions of Bill C-59, we are demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process. We believe in collective bargaining. Today's bill is a testament to our belief in that right. We also believe in fair and balanced labour relations. Unfortunately, over the past few years, many basic labour rights have been undermined.

Consider Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which will change how unions can be certified or decertified and impose new financial reporting requirements on them.

Those bills were passed absent any of the usual consultation involving employers, unions, and the government, which took place during the Public Service Staff Relations Act reform.

As a result, it is now harder for unions and employers to bargain effectively in good faith. We must ensure that workers are free to organize, bargain collectively in good faith, and ensure safe workplaces for themselves.

To make that happen, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced a bill to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Bill C-4 restores the bargaining agent certification and decertification processes that were in place before June 16, 2015.

Bill C-4 also amends the Income Tax Act, in order to get rid of unnecessary requirements imposed on labour organizations and labour trusts with regard to filing certain financial information.

As hon. members know, legislative measures are already in place to ensure that unions make that financial information available. Under section 110 of the Canada Labour Code, unions are required to provide financial statements to their members on request and free of charge, which makes these requirements to produce extra reports unnecessary.

The bill being introduced today is consistent with our belief in fair and balanced labour relations. Every other police force in Canada has had the right to engage in collective bargaining for quite some time.

This bill respects that right, while recognizing the particular circumstances of the RCMP as a national police force. It is time for us to give RCMP members and reservists the respect they deserve.

To that end, I am calling on all hon. members to show their support for RCMP members and reservists by voting in favour of this bill.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

That is a fair question, Mr. Speaker. The ruling came out in January 2015. Parliament rose in June 2015, and that was the last time that this place convened before the election. In that brief interval of four or five months, it was not possible to properly consult RCMP members and police leaders, in order to construct a legislative solution to that ruling.

That is evidenced by the fact that the present government has been in office since November and it is now mid-March, which means that its members took some time to craft a response. Within the confines of the bill itself, notwithstanding the related flawed bill, Bill C-4, the government has done a decent job.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Carleton for his comments, and especially for confirming that Bill C-7 itself is reasonable, fair, and constructive, and we do look forward to comments and proposals at the committee level.

The member used most of his time to talk about Bill C-4 and to talk about Bill C-525, which his government put forward. I would like to remind the member that there was a huge amount of controversy and comment that Bill C-525 was pushed through without consultation, in contrast to Bill C-7, in which there was extensive consultation. That is one point I want to make before I get to my question.

The second is this. If the member is so proud of Bill C-525, which would require a mandatory vote, why did the previous government hide the report that its very own department tabled, showing that a mandatory vote is detrimental to labour relations in comparison to the card check method? The card check method does enable the public service members to indicate their preference around being represented by an employee organization.

I find it stunning, given that the Conservatives hid the evidence that suggested their bill was a bad one, and they never consulted on it, that this would be the key thing that the member would want to push for in this House. It just defies belief.

We have the NDP saying the card check is the only—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to contribute to the discussion on 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. This act would deal with the right of our brave men and women of the red serge to bargain collectively.

This bill is a response to the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter last winter. The court gave the government a year from January 15 to implement a new collective bargaining regime for the RCMP. That deadline has since been extended. The ruling also indicated that it was the right of RCMP members to unionize based on paragraph 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it found that the existing staff relations representative program was an insufficient guarantee of that freedom of association.

I am generally satisfied with the contents of the bill itself. Let me explain why.

First, the bill would not require the RCMP to unionize. It creates a framework based on the existing certification laws under the public service employment legislation, whereby RCMP members can, if they so choose, form a union.

Furthermore, it would create certain protections that are necessary in light of the unique nature of employment within a policing organization. First, a prospective union must have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members. It cannot be affiliated with another bargaining agent or association that does not have that as its primary purpose, and it cannot be certified to represent any other group of employees. In other words, it would be an organization-wide bargaining unit represented by a single bargaining agent that would exclusively serve RCMP members and no other group of employees within the federal government. That is important, because if RCMP members choose to unionize, that union should be of RCMP members, by RCMP members, and for RCMP members for it to be truly representative and appropriate for a police force.

I am very proud of the police force that we have serving nationwide. The RCMP headquarters is here in Ottawa, close to my home. I am also very proud that Conservatives introduced legislation to help the RCMP do its job better and to keep our streets safe from crime and terrorism.

I should go on, though, to express my satisfaction with certain other limits that exist within this proposed legislation so that we can protect the work of the national police force. For example, policies on law enforcement techniques, transfers, appointments, promotions, disciplinary actions against RCMP members, and an RCMP officer's duty, dress, equipment, and medals are rightly left outside of the collective bargaining process and managed within the context of the RCMP Act. This bill would do that.

Next, the bill would, rightly, increase the size of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board from 10 to 12 members and insist that the two additional members have intimate knowledge of policing, so that when matters related to employment and labour relations within the RCMP come before the board, policing expertise will be found around the table. That is a reasonable proposal.

Furthermore, as with most police organizations across the country, under this legislation there will be no right to strike, for obvious reasons, because we need to protect our streets. Even in the event of a dispute or an impasse in labour relations, we cannot afford to have our officers off the street and on strike. The government has rightly recognized this fact and embedded that reality in the bill itself.

The bill itself is reasonable and fair. However, it cannot be looked at in isolation. Simultaneous to this bill, our House and our Parliament are debating and discussing another bill that would strip the democratic rights of federally regulated workers across the country.

Bill C-4 would remove the right of a secret ballot vote from federally regulated workers in matters of certification. It is important to be clear on what this means. It means that a union could take over a federally regulated workforce without there being a vote by the members who work in that workplace. In other words, thousands of employees from any number of federal employers could be forced to pay dues to and be represented by a union for which they never had a chance to cast a vote. This is particularly alarming when it relates to the RCMP, an organization comprised of members who put their lives on the line each and every day, in part to defend our democratic way of life. Therefore, it is a great irony that members of the RCMP, of all groups of employees, would be deprived the most basic democratic right, which is the right to vote in secret on whether to certify a union.

The alternative to a secret ballot is a process called “card check”, where those people who want to take over a workplace and form a union go around with a petition and ask people to sign it. Then when they get 50% plus one of the employees to sign on, the board recognizes a majority and declares the union to be a bargaining agent. The obvious problem with that is intimidation. When workers have to put their names down on paper for all eyes to see, they risk being pressured unduly into favouring one side or another. It would be the equivalent of holding our national elections by a show of hands. Imagine that? The government said that our previous Bill C-525, which empowered workers with a secret ballot, was undemocratic.

The government is in the process of trying to change our electoral system. I wonder if the Liberals are simultaneously considering taking away the secret ballot from our general elections and replacing it with some sort of petition, or show of hands, or a card check as it is called. The parliamentary secretary earlier cited a report from the ministry of employment, showing the statistical reality that if workers were given the right to vote, they were less inclined to choose unionization. In other words, unions are not formed at as high a rate when people are given a chance to vote on the question as they are when people are forced to sign a card-check petition.

The government's problem is with the outcome. The government might not be happy that when workers are given the choice through a democratic vote, they opt not to unionize. However, that is the choice of the workers not the choice of the government. It is obvious that rates of certification would go up if those people doing the certifying were able to intimidate those they were trying to certify. Naturally, if they can show up on the doorsteps of employees at 10 p.m., ask them to sign a form and leave implied consequences for failing to do so, it is not surprising that unions are able to certify at higher rates than when the workers are given a chance to go into a voting booth and mark a secret ballot, exercising their true prerogative without anybody looking over their shoulders. However, that is not evidence of why we should take away their right to vote.

I was not particularly thrilled with the results of the last federal election, but I would never propose taking away the rights of Canadian voters to cast their ballot in secret as a result. It is their choice on how they vote. I could probably produce some sort of study to show that in some aspect of Canadian life voters would cast a ballot differently if they were given a chance to vote secretly on the matter. That is not a reason to take away the secret ballot.

The fact that workers or anyone votes differently when they have the right to do so secretly than they would if they were being watched by an authority figure is the very reason we need secret ballots. That is precisely the reason they were created, and they are a basic foundation not only of workplace democracy, but of Canadian democracy.

I would call on the government to recognize that fact and amend the bill to ensure the RCMP members will not be unionized without the right to vote on that unionization. In fact, Canadians agree with the right of secret ballot. It is basically in our democratic DNA. Secret ballot voting to certify union is not new or controversial. Ontario requires it. British Columbia requires it. Both of these provinces are currently represented by Liberal governments. Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador also require secret ballots and none of them is represented by the Conservative Party.

In administrations run by the NDP, the Liberals, the Saskatchewan Party, and others, we have secret ballot certifications in provincially regulated workplaces right across the country. In Quebec, Canada's second most unionized province, there is enormous support for secret ballot votes on certification.

One poll in August 2009 found that 71% of Quebeckers said that secret ballots should be required as a way of getting union certification. In the United States, polls have shown that 80% of people believe a secret ballot should be required for a union to form. Therefore, it cannot simply be seen south of the border as a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is an issue that unites basically all North American public opinion in a vast majority who favour a secret ballot vote before a union can certify a workplace.

I would further identify the fact that if RCMP members are forced to join a particular union without having a chance to vote, that union will have difficulty establishing itself as a legitimate representative for the workers for which it will become the bargaining unit.

I also have warned the government of a political problem, and that is the reality that if it does deny employees in the RCMP the ability to conduct a secret ballot vote on unionization, it could very well learn of stories of intimidation within the workplace and those stories will reflect badly on the government's decision to strip that basic right from RCMP members.

I ask the government to consider an amendment to the legislation which would preserve the existing secret ballot formula that is found in public service labour relations legislation and ensure that the men and women who put on the uniform of the RCMP are given that basic human right in an eventual and inevitable certification drive. If they should select to unionize through that mechanism of a vote, then we, nationwide, should respect the result of that vote and respect the legitimacy of the union that it produces.

This is not a radical concept. We have five provinces in the country where provincially regulated workplaces certify their unions through secret ballot voting. It is a basic tenet of democracy.

Deep down I think members of the Liberal government understand and agree with that, and I will tell members why.

I have listened to all of the Liberals' comments with respect to their proposed repeal of Bill C-525, which is the bill the Conservative government passed to create secret ballot voting rights. However, the two words they never say when they are talking about that bill are “secret ballot”. They say that bill, which is now law, makes certification harder and decertification easier, but they do not say how. They say that it lowers unionization rates, but they do not say why. The bill really only does one thing. It replaces a card-check petition with a secret ballot vote. However, members on the government side can never actually bring themselves to utter those two words “secret ballot”.

Why? Because I think they know that if they were to openly argue against the right to vote for federally regulated workers on the grounds that it was not consistent with the government's view of labour relations, they would be laughed out of any room in our country. Everybody, coast to coast, acknowledges that democratic decision making has to happen through a secret ballot.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, you are chosen by secret ballot. We choose representation for our very House through a secret ballot vote. Every person in this room has a job today because they were elected by secret ballot. In fact, most unions elect their representatives through a secret ballot vote when they are certified. Everybody acknowledges that decisions of this magnitude made by a group of employees in a workplace should be done through a secret ballot, unless one has an ideological motivation to override the real will of the working people and to impose an outcome on them.

I think members will find that, in reality, those who are pushing for an end to secret ballot voting within the workplace on matters of unionization are those who are unhappy with the outcome that the secret ballot democratic vote would produce, which is no excuse. One cannot oppose democracy simply because one does not like the outcome to which it leads.

This is why we, as official opposition, congratulate the government for Bill C-7 in its own right, as a fair and balanced approach to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling on collective bargaining in the RCMP. However, I would ask that the bill be made better through an amendment that would allow the brave men and women who wear the RCMP uniform to be the masters of their own destiny by giving them the right to vote.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend raises a very good point. When that particular bill was being debated and the Conservatives were in government, there was a great deal of suspicion about the motivations behind the bill. We believed it would have a negative impact on labour relations in Canada and voted against it.

There was a great deal of opposition to it at the committee stage. We talked a great deal about it during the election. That is ultimately why we felt it was important to get it right and why we introduced Bill C-4, to correct the mistakes the Conservatives made back then.

When the minister brought forward the report, it reaffirmed that we were correct when we were sitting in opposition, when we told Canadians that the legislation the Conservatives were proposing would not be healthy for labour relations in Canada.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, who also touched on the comments by the member for Durham about Bill C-4, which is seeking to rescind Bill C-525. On this side of the House, we believe that Bill C-525 had a negative effect on rights and freedoms in the workforce.

It turns out, interestingly enough, that just when the former Conservative government was pushing forward Bill C-525, claiming that it would not adversely affect the rights of workers to unionize, its own internal labour program research department had conducted a study showing that it would adversely affect the union movement and its ability to organize. That study was hidden. Our minister, just yesterday, tabled that study at the human resources, skills, and social development committee.

I would like to ask my colleague what he believes the role of evidence should be, and the role of openness and transparency about this evidence, in making decisions around legislation for the benefit of the rights and freedoms of the Canadian workforce.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's bringing up my reference to the red uniform. It was not meant in any way to be disrespectful. If someone did feel I was being disrespectful, I apologize. The red serge is a very impressive uniform that has been recognized, as I indicated, throughout the world. The word actually escaped me at the moment when I was talking about it.

In regard to the question at hand, members will have an opportunity to make the case at committee stage. I would encourage the member and the Conservative opposition to seriously consider whom they might want to invite as expert witnesses before the committee.

I trust that in coming up with their amendments, the Conservative members will substantiate and make credible their amendments, including where those amendments are coming from and the types of real, tangible support they might have for those particular amendments.

The cautionary note I would make is to recognize the debates that took place on Bill C-4. There was a great deal of concern regarding the whole secret ballot issue. We need to be very sensitive to the important balance between labour and management.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in this place to share some thoughts on yet another very important piece of legislation, something that I suspect people should be supportive of.

I have had the opportunity on previous occasions to address different types of legislation. I would recommend that my colleagues, no matter what side of the House they are on, take into consideration that this legislation is before us because there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision that was made, and as a result legislation was then required. I would argue that this type of legislation could have, and possibly should have, been introduced long ago, even prior to the last federal election. I think it would have been nice to have had something in place.

I am very happy with the approach that this government has taken in addressing legislation, in particular with some of the labour issues. I truly believe that we can do much more in terms of improving the quality of the relationship between labour and management, not just within the private sector, but also the public sector.

A couple of weeks ago, I met a member of the public union at a local restaurant. He shared with me a questionnaire that was circulated among the civil service. It was discouraging. The questionnaire results were based, I believe from 2014. The results were very disturbing, in the sense that there is a high level of dissatisfaction, of mistrust. There is this sense that the Government of Canada was not listening to the needs of Canada's public service, or at the very least was not demonstrating respect for our civil service.

There has been a change in attitude since the last federal election. We have seen our new Prime Minister and the Canadian government take a different approach in dealing with our civil service, or unions in general. We recognize the valuable contributions they make to our society. This is ultimately recognized, not only here in terms of the citizenry of our country, but also in other jurisdictions in the world that have recognized the professionalism throughout our public service.

I tried to assure my constituent when he was sharing these very poor results from 2014 that there is a new attitude in Ottawa, in terms of appreciation and gratitude for the phenomenal work that our civil service puts in.

When I look at the legislation before us today, it is an extension of other areas in which the government is trying to demonstrate that things have changed. There was a four-month extension that was given.

I listened to the comments, whether they were from Conservative critic or the NDP member of Parliament from Elmwood—Transcona, about wanting to see changes. I have good news for them. The good news is that we within government want to see change in the way in which our standing committees themselves operate. If the opposition takes the gesture that is coming right from the Prime Minister and the cabinet, and in essence from the government benches, I would suggest that we will see amendments brought forward, not only potentially to Bill C-7, but to other pieces of legislation.

I had the opportunity to serve over 20 years in opposition, and I have often had a sense of frustration when I wanted to see amendments brought forward, and for whatever reason—usually because they came from the wrong side of the committee—opposition amendments were just completely outright rejected.

I am suggesting, as have other colleagues, that there is a new open attitude toward the way in which committees and standing committees could be working into the future.

I tend to agree with the Prime Minister that a lot of the heavy lifting and the hard work can in fact be done in our committees. Therefore, when the member for Elmwood—Transcona talks about some of the ways he believes we have fallen short on the legislation, let me suggest for him and for all members—it does not matter whether they are even on the opposition benches, so even for my colleagues on the government benches—that if they are prepared to do the work and the consultation and share their ideas in a proactive fashion, in a progressive manner, they should not be surprised to see their amendments actually accepted and ultimately improve the legislation.

That could happen with Bill C-7 or any other piece of legislation, but the onus and the responsibility in good part is on those who are sitting on the committee. At the end of the day, if we are passing legislation through second reading and a member has some thoughts and some ideas that could improve the legislation, the government is open to listening to them. Why would we not approve, or at the very least consider, amendments that would improve the quality of the legislation itself? All Canadians would benefit from that. The Prime Minister has spoken out on this. We want to see more effective and functional standing committees that will ultimately contribute to improving the system.

I recognize, in the hour or hour and a half in which we have had the opportunity to debate this issue, that there were a number of members who talked about the importance of amendments. Let me qualify that by saying—and the parliamentary secretary in particular made reference to a fairly extensive survey where literally thousands of RCMP officers were consulted and feedback was solicited, and we received a considerable amount of information—that we understand what is being asked of the government in coming up with the legislation as to what they would like to see in the legislation. I will make more reference to that a little later in my comments.

We have to look at amendments to legislation from a holistic approach, everything from the legislation itself and the impact an amendment would have on the legislation, to what degree we are hearing from the different stakeholders and the witnesses who ultimately appear before a committee.

One of the things I really enjoy, coming from a provincial legislature to the House of Commons, is the degree to which standing committees have the ability to bring experts from across the country to provide their input on legislation—and on other matters, but specifically on legislation.

When the bill ultimately goes to committee, we will hear from experts from virtually all regions of our great nation, coming forward, sharing their thoughts, and I suspect from a combination of what they, opposition members, and government members are saying, that we might actually see some amendments brought forward.

I decided to take some time to emphasize the importance of this because there is a time limit. I do believe there is some merit to see the bill ultimately pass in a timely fashion.

As has been pointed out, the Supreme Court of Canada made its decision in January 2015. It said we needed to change the law to enable our RCMP, a wonderful national institution, to unionize if it chose to do so.

We were given a year. We had to apply for that four-month extension. From a court procedural sense, we need to speed up the process if we can. However, it should not be only about the perspective of the court. Many members of our RCMP have been anxiously awaiting this. The sooner we put this in place, then the sooner we would be allowing those fine members, who have served us so well over the years, to do what they would like to do.

There are two good reasons why I would recommend to my colleagues, no matter what side of the House they sit on, that they allow this legislation to go to committee. The sooner it gets to committee, the more opportunity the committee will have to deal with the many different issues that have been raised so far in the debate. Ultimately it will come back from the committee, and looking at the actual number of sitting days and the government's proposed legislative agenda, we see that time is a scarce commodity in this chamber. We could do a great service by recognizing the value of getting the bill to committee stage.

A number of thoughts came to my mind while I was listening to the Conservative critic, and I wanted to pose a question for him in regard to those thoughts. Some of his remarks were a bit off topic, for example, when he referenced debt and deficit that he attributes to Liberal prime ministers. If he has been listening closely to what the government has been saying, he is probably finding it intellectually challenging as to why he might stay on that side, given the number of times he has quoted Liberal prime ministers. Rather than adding more comment on that particular issue at this time, I will wait until we get the opportunity during budget debate. Suffice it to say that, when the member referenced the deficit, I would suggest that the Conservatives had a huge deficit and debt issue, far exceeding any Liberal administration since Confederation.

The member also made reference to Bill C-4 as if it were bad legislation. I am from Winnipeg, and maybe it is because Winnipeg faced the general strike of 1919 that I tend to differ with the Conservative Party. I recognize the valuable role that unions play in society, both today and into the future, but the Conservative Party in particular does not recognize this. We saw that with respect to the questions the member put forward and his statements while addressing Bill C-7. The member was critical of Bill C-4, but he does not recognize that Bill C-4 would improve Canada's labour legislation, just like the bill we have before us today. If passed, Bill C-7 would improve the labour situation here in Canada.

Bill C-4 is not the government's first priority piece of legislation. Our first priority was Bill C-2, which concerned our tax break for the middle class. Bill C-4 is a priority because the Conservatives changed labour legislation to the detriment of the union movement in Canada. That particular piece of legislation was brought in to rectify a wrong that the Conservatives had put in place.

That is the reason why I suggested earlier that the Conservatives have a different approach to dealing with labour legislation, which has ultimately led to what we have in Bill C-7 today. They had eight or nine months to deal with the legislation in some form or another. They have talked a lot about the secret ballot. They had the opportunity to put that into the legislation if they were prepared to bring it forward back then. However, it was a low priority, even though the Supreme Court of Canada had ultimately made a ruling. I would suggest that the Conservatives were negligent on this file and, as a result, that has created a time crunch, and I hope and I trust that all members will recognize that.

Before I get into more of the details of the legislation itself, I did want to pick up on a couple of important points. The most important one is that this legislation was brought forward to deal and assist with a free bargaining process for our RCMP officers. I do not think that enough could be said about the incredible work that our RCMP officers do from coast to coast to coast. The RCMP is one of those great Canadian institutions from which Canadians as a whole get a great sense of pride, especially when we see the traditional red uniform with the hat. It is something I believe embodies a great sense of pride for Canadians. It is an iconic institution that is recognized around the world as one of the greatest police forces of modern time. I believe we should all pay tribute to the fantastic work that the RCMP does.

We need to also recognize that this is not the first time that a police or law enforcement agency is looking at the possibility of forming a union. We have had police unions in Canada dating back almost 100 years, so Canadians do not need to be fearful of a union, as some members on the other side might try to espouse. There is a great deal of benefit to recognizing the valuable role unions have played in police forces in Canada to date. It is not as if we are going into an area that has never been explored in the past. The opportunity for the RCMP to unionize is very real, and I suspect it will likely happen. However, at the end of the day, it is the RCMP that will ultimately make that decision. The important thing to recognize is its right to have a collective bargaining regime. That was the essence of the ruling that was made by the Supreme Court.

I will highlight this fact. In that massive consultation and surveying that was done with RCMP officers, there were a couple of points that need to be recognized. One was that there was strong support for a union throughout all of those consultations and so forth. There was also strong support for a single national bargaining unit, and the idea of binding arbitration versus the ability to strike.

With those very few words, I trust and hope there will be a few questions.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, to the extent that I believe that once Bill C-4 passes we will have a better certification regime in Canada, it is a happy coincidence that the two bills are moving in tandem through the House of Commons. That means that when RCMP members are ready to organize, if they choose to do so, they will have a better certification regime under which to do it.

My colleague in the NDP spoke earlier about some of the issues that come up when workplaces are on the cusp of forming unions and the intimidation that workers can be subjected to. I do not think anyone is naive in this place. We do not live in a perfect world. Intimidation can sometimes occur on both sides, but many methods of intimidation may be available to an unscrupulous union, or to the employer as well. There are far more tools available to the employer than are available to anyone else doing the organizing, which is why the card check system is important. The employer can put the jobs, lives, and families of workers on the line, if they decide they want to be represented in the workplace. It is not just plucking a few examples, as one member suggested earlier. It is far more the case that we can provide thousands of examples where this has happened.

I am pleased that RCMP members will have the opportunity to organize under a better regime, that is if they do not organize beforehand under the old regime.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for standing up for the efforts that Liberals are taking to move collective bargaining forward through the work on Bill C-7, and the work we did on Bill C-4 previous to this.

Bill C-7 is respecting the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, and reflects the government's consultations with 9,000 RCMP regular members via a survey and 655 town hall meetings. The timing on this has been set by the Supreme Court, which gives Parliament until May 17 to respond to its ruling. Could the hon. member please reflect on the combination that we now have in front of us, Bill C-4 and Bill C-7, in strengthening Canada's collective bargaining process?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention. We are both missing being at committee because of this debate, and I am sure we will both scurry over there shortly afterward.

I think he is right. Bill C-7 is the government's response. I rose in January to say that the government was taking more time to correct a flaw. However, I will say again that the court's first and fundamental tenet of the charter right is employee choice, and that is not reflected in the bill. What is catching the government in an awkward position is that Bill C-4, which was an election promise it made to get support from labour in the election, conflicts with Bill C-7 and what the charter expects. They will have to reconcile that before the House.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member for Durham and all the work he does on behalf of the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces. However, his comments confused me.

He is insisting on a secret ballot. Bill C-525, which the Conservative government brought forward, made it more difficult for employees to unionize, harder for unions to certify, and easier for unions to be decertified. That is the bill the Liberal government is repealing with Bill C-4, in which case the board will have a choice. It will be at the discretion of the board whether there will be a secret ballot or a card check, and the board can make sure that the members' interests are reflected in the choice made.

The secret ballot makes it harder for the collective bargaining process and provides less freedom for the members. Why is the member insisting on that as the mechanism?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today in this debate on Bill C-7 and to be the first speaker on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on this important subject.

All parties in this place respect the important role played by the RCMP/GRC, our Mounties, and not just for the iconic image they represent around the world and the subsequent acknowledgement of Canadians as a people who respect one another and enjoy peace, order, and good government. We acknowledge, and we have paid homage in this House, when some of our front-line men and women have risked their lives and in fact given their lives in recent years in Alberta and Moncton, serving Canada and protecting the society we all enjoy.

The Conservative Party, when we were in government, followed the court case of the Mounted Police Association of Ontario very closely as it made its way through the courts. We are here today because of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that came down last year and provided an opportunity for the government to respond.

The previous government had been looking at the Supreme Court decision, consulting, meeting with senior leadership within the RCMP, and hearing from front-line members. Then there was the transition, and the same issue was faced by the new Liberal government, which asked for a bit of an extension in January. The court has given the government until April to come up with a framework for labour relations and bargaining for members of the RCMP that meets the spirit and intent of the Supreme Court decision in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario versus Canada.

I am here today as the official opposition public safety critic. I will be speaking just before or alongside my colleague, who is responsible for Treasury Board, and certainly the impact of Supreme Court decision has a dual aspect. It solidifies and elucidates the right to collective bargaining that the Supreme Court has given members of the RCMP, as their exclusion from the Public Service Labour Relations Act was declared unconstitutional and in violation of section 2(d) of the charter, the right to association.

However, there certainly will be economic ramifications of that as well. That is the second aspect of the decision, and that is why the opposition will lead off with both public safety and Treasury Board critics speaking.

As the public safety critic, having heard from Commissioner Paulson just yesterday and having already had the opportunity to have him before the public safety committee in this new Parliament, I want to begin my remarks by thanking the front-line men and women of our RCMP. They are charged with a very important role in our country, given the breadth and size of our country and the fact that large portions of rural Canada would not have policing services were it not for the men and women of the RCMP.

This conversation on this subject, while it deals with labour relations and ultimately will have an impact on the fiscal framework for Canada, must begin by acknowledgement on all sides of this House of the tremendous respect we have for the RCMP. There are 28,461 regular force members of the RCMP, not including auxiliaries, whom we all know and see in communities across the country. They also play a very critical role, particularly for large events and things like that in our communities across the country.

Let us put that in perspective for a moment. That number of 28,000 or so members of Canada's police force is significant when we compare it to the next-largest police force in Canada, the Ontario Provincial Police, with about 6,100 uniformed members, and the largest municipal police service, also in Ontario, the Toronto Police Service, with 7,900 members.

The Supreme Court, and really the court case launched by the association in Ontario, recognized that alongside its municipal and provincial comrades in arms, Canada's largest police force needed the ability to have effective collective bargaining in the same way that its provincial and municipal cousins did. The Supreme Court has given some guidance on that and this has led us here to Bill C-7 today.

However, Canada's largest police force, our national police force, does attract a significant expense of the Government of Canada for salaries, a $1.6 billion commitment to public safety, to front-line policing across the country. Only time will tell, but all parties acknowledge that the impact of the Supreme Court decision and the changing of the bargaining arrangement, or in simple terms the unionization of the RCMP, will have a significant impact upon the fiscal framework for Canada.

I say that mere hours before the budget is to be brought forward by the new government. I hope it approaches Bill C-7 and its implementation with a little more caution than it appears it has approached this budget, particularly when it comes to operational spending, most of which is made up of salaries. The pressure is on that, particularly once reference bargaining between the large municipal and provincial forces begins. We need to ensure our front-line officers get what they deserve, the support they deserve, the salary, remuneration, benefits, health care, and support for mental health. We need to ensure we look at the well-being of our front-line officers, not just in the context of salaries but in how we take care of them both while they are serving and after, particularly if they leave with a service-related injury.

In my far too brief time, unfortunately, as minister of veterans affairs, I had the honour of interacting quite regularly with the RCMP and its members. As the government knows, and as its new minister well knows, the ill and injured of the RCMP are provided for and their support is administered through Veterans Affairs Canada. We have certainly seen how in recent years the health and wellness support, particularly for mental injuries from service, has dramatically come into the modern era, and we are very proud of that. I know the new government will continue that important work. Our public safety committee right now is studying operational stress injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder for our front-line responders.

The interesting things we have learned over the last generation from our veterans and from our Canadian Armed Forces are now being shared with our RCMP and with municipal and provincial police forces. In fact, the document of the Canadian Armed Forces, “Road to Mental Readiness”, a wellness document for mental health, is now really the touchstone for first responder uniformed personnel serving in Canada. That needs to be a very important part of this discussion, as does the implementation of what comes from Bill C-7.

As the member of Parliament for Durham, I also need to once again thank the men and women of RCMP detachment Bowmanville, in my community, who are part of the Toronto East, the “O” detachment of the RCMP, which is not as widely seen in Ontario because we have the OPP. This detachment for the Toronto GTA East is very important. Like in so many communities, when the men and women hang up their uniform after their shift, these same people are often the coaches at the hockey rinks and the soccer fields, and become the backbone of our communities.

I want to salute the RCMP members in my own detachment and speak for a minute about the other eight provinces.

Quebec and Ontario have provincial police forces, but many parts of Canada would not have the important underpinning of public safety were it not for the men and women of the RCMP, particularly rural areas where often that member will be the first and sole response to an incident. In recent years, the RCMP's ability to work with parts of rural Canada, first nation leadership, and first nation police forces, has truly been remarkable. That needs to also be part of the framework that becomes the new collective bargaining approach for our RCMP.

Bill C-7 is the result of the government's response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada. Specifically, it looked at whether the staff relations representative program within the RCMP met the test of giving the freedom of association to members of the RCMP guaranteed by the charter. One of the members of our caucus, who is a proud retired RCMP officer, knows that the staff relations representative program did try to act as that conduit between the workforce and management in the sense of a bargaining agent.

As a result of the creation of that staff relations program, going back to the 1970s, the RCMP was excluded from the Public Sector Labour Relations Act. It was specifically excluded in legislation. That exclusion, alongside an analysis of the staff representative program, was what the Supreme Court ultimately looked at. Its finding was that the staff relations program did not meet the standard it expected under section 2(d) of the charter providing the men and women of the RCMP with the freedom of association.

It is interesting and important to note that the decision of the Supreme Court did not say to just strike out those sections of the PSLRA, the Public Safety Labour Relations Act, and treat the RCMP like any other public service. The analysis of the Supreme Court decision is quite illustrative, particularly with our modern labour law, which is starting to move away from the traditional Wagner model that we inherited from 1930s labour relations in the United States.

What did the court actually say in this decision? We see parts of that reflected in Bill C-7, but we have concerns of another nature. The court said that section 2(d) guaranteed meaningful collective bargaining, meaningful representation, but it broke that down further and said that meaningful collective bargaining and meaningful representation had two parts. The first part was employee choice; there must be choice. With respect to the second part to provide that meaningful standard, there needed to be sufficient independence from management. This is really where the old model within the RCMP failed in the eyes of the court. The court felt the staff relations program was not seen to be independent enough from management. It was seen more as a human resources tool and not an agent for bargaining and protecting the collective rights of the employees. That is an important distinction to make. Had the staff relations program been a little more independent, this may have survived the Supreme Court's analysis.

The Supreme Court specifically said, “freedom of association under s. 2(d) is that the guarantee will not necessarily protect all associational activity.” The arrangement must not “substantially interfere”, and that is a later quote it used and is the standard, with the employees' rights to that bargaining, their choice, and the independence.

Bill C-7 does reflect that and would bring certain parts of the workplace relationship outside of the bill. I respect the fact the government has acknowledged that part of the decision. Certain elements through the grievance process and certain elements of the workplace would not be subject to the collective bargaining relationship. That is important, given the unique role and the chain of command structure and heritage of the RCMP as a police force. The government appears to have acknowledged that in Bill C-7.

What is absent entirely from Bill C-7 is that first element of the Supreme Court's decision, which is that meaningful collective bargaining and the meaningful right to association under the charter must have as its first principle employee choice.

In fact, I heard my friend from Spadina—Fort York earlier talk about the front-line members of the RCMP and say, “If they choose”. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada put as the fundamental construct to this relationship, employee choice.

However, what is absent in Bill C-7 is a codification of that employee choice which, in our modern democracy, requires a secret ballot vote. The members of the RCMP whose collective rights under section 2(b) of the charter can be exercised by their employee choice at the first instance, saying whether they want an association or not, and that vote to be conducted in a way that conforms with our democratic principles should be by secret ballot.

Why is that interesting? Because of the order paper we have two bills before Parliament. We are in the early days, so leaving out private members' business, I think we are up to Bills C-7 or C-8. Bill C-4 expresses the government's clear intention that secret ballot should not be a fundamental underpinning of the choice employees have on whether to belong to a union.

I have not heard the parliamentary secretary, my friend, in his remarks explain that omission. I hope to hear that addressed somewhere in the debate on Bill C-7, because it does drive an interesting omission on the part of the government.

The Supreme Court of Canada said that the first pillar to meaningful right of association was employee choice, but that is not codified in Bill C-7. Therefore, I think we will see the opposition, learning from the Supreme Court, ensuring that employee choice and secret ballot is directly a part of Bill C-7. We hope, with the government members being mindful of the court decision, it will agree to amend the bill to reflect that. If they do, it is our intention to work with the Liberals on it.

The previous government, as I said, was looking at the impact of the Supreme Court decision and how we could guarantee this charter right for our men and women of the RCMP, alongside ensuring that their important structure, chain of command and the important duties and risks inherent in policing are respected and not diminished, and public safety is not impacted through the course of what might be regular Wagner model union construct.

What is interesting is that this decision, along with the Fraser Health decision, has shown a gradual departure in labour law from traditional Canadian law. In fact, years ago, when Justice Rosalie Abella was on the Ontario Labour Relations Board, there was a balance between these arbitration-type boards, quasi-judicial bodies, the law and the legislature. Now that legislatures are intervening more in labour law and now that this charter right is developing with respect to association, it is changing the old model, and the courts have acknowledged that.

In fact, some of the best labour minds in the country, including some friends of mine with whom I used to practise law, including Brian Burkett and John Craig, have written on the move away from the Wagner model. What does that mean? It means the exclusivity of a union guaranteed by the Wagner model may indeed be a thing of the past, and that it is quite acceptable for provisions of what the police do to be excluded from collective bargaining. In fact, the court has said that the Wagner model itself is not the constitutional right. It is the meaningful right to collective bargaining and an agent that is constitutionally protected.

As I said, with the fundamental charter right that led to this decision, the two-part test, the first part is employee choice. Therefore, the government should have that reflected in Bill C-7: employee choice on who their agent should be, on their priorities, as well employee choice on whether they are unionized. That should be by secret ballot, which Canada has had since 1874. If the government acknowledges and amends this, it may see some unanimity in this place, and I would like to see that.

Business of the House

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate on the opposition motion that we began this morning.

Tomorrow, we will have the final day of debate at second reading on Bill C-4, concerning unions. I would like to note that the votes relating to this bill will be deferred to the end of the day on Monday, March 7, pursuant to an order adopted earlier today.

I want to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House for their co-operation in finding an agreement on this matter, and also on the ISIL motion, which was debated earlier this week.

Next week, as my colleague indicated, members will be working in their ridings.

On Monday, March 7, we will resume debate, at second reading stage, of Bill C-2 concerning a tax cut for the middle class. I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, March 8, will be an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading stage of Bill C-6 on citizenship, which was introduced this morning by my colleague, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. On Thursday, we will begin consideration of Bill C-5 concerning public servants' sick leave.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know that you have been looking forward to this. Pursuant to Standing Order 83 (2), I would ask that an order of the day be designated for the Minister of Finance to present the budget at 4 p.m., on Tuesday, March 22, 2016.

Labour

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, we want to clarify that Bill C-4 is here to reset a stage that is fair and balanced. Each individual collective bargaining unit can decide on its own system that it chooses to use, whether it is the card system or the voting system. The point of Bill C-4 is to bring fairness and balance, something that was missing because of the other side.

Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my further thoughts on that are that this is part of an emerging pattern. We saw a number of places where the Liberals were making certain professions during the campaign that were designed to tap into a sense of malaise with Canadians about how the previous government was behaving and policies it had undertaken. To be sure, some of those have been acted on.

We have been happy to see the reinstitution of the long-form census, for instance. I was pleased to stand and speak in favour of Bill C-4.

However, on some other things, like EI reform, making a commitment to expand the CPP, those were commitments that the Liberals made to capture a spirit of reform, a different kind of reform, a left-wing reform. I do not want members beside me to get too excited as I talk about reform.

We now see that they are all too slow to act. I hope that does not mean that they will not act at all.

Labour

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is right to state that the previous Conservative government had organized labour in its crosshairs. We saw that time and again, with Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 for example, which I am very pleased that our minister's first piece of legislation, Bill C-4, will repeal.

We will continue to work on labour issues, fair wages, and the definition of danger. Those are important issues and we will continue to pursue them as we go forward.

Decorum in the House

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from the debate on Bill C-4 that occurred prior to question period.

The member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas delivered her speech. The first question posed to her was by the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

Immediately after posing the question, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa proceeded to leave the chamber and to heckle the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas as he left the chamber from his seat as well as in the corridor.

I am a new member. I understand that the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is not. I would appreciate some clarification as to whether this kind of behaviour is appropriate, and if not, I would ask the chair to politely intervene.

Business of the House

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very important question.

This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative Party's opposition motion. Tomorrow, the House will debate Bill C-4, which repeals provisions having to do with unions.

On Tuesday, February 16, after our constituency work week, as my colleague says, we will resume debate on this very important bill.

On Wednesday, we will commence second reading debate on the bill currently standing on the order paper in the name of the President of the Treasury Board.

Lastly, I would like to designate Thursday, February 18, as the fourth opposition day of this supply period.

I want to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues a very productive and hard-working week in your constituencies and look forward to seeing everybody back on February 16.

Ethics

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the case I am familiar with was immediately addressed. We worked with Elections Canada to remedy it.

In terms of Bill C-4, it would re-establish fairness and balance, as the members across the way understand.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, I was saying that last week, the government claimed that at the very moment that it became aware of illegal union financing, the party followed the law. The problem is that the government is leaving out an important part of the story.

In an internal union email that we received, we learned that the Liberal leader's team requested this event and the union identified 25 people to stand near the Liberal leader during the event. The government is leaving out an important part of the story.

Will the minister finally acknowledge that Bill C-4 is the government's way of thanking those who made illegal contributions—

Business of the House

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of his best efforts, we just had a good example of embellishment right there. Why do I not focus on the very erudite question that comes on Thursdays that I know members look forward to all week.

This afternoon we will resume debate on the Conservative Party's opposition motion.

Tomorrow, the House will debate Bill C-2, which amends the Income Tax Act, at second reading, and we will continue that important debate on Monday.

Tuesday, February 2, will be another opposition day.

On Wednesday, we will debate Bill C-4, which repeals the Conservatives' unfair union bills. As colleagues know, this important legislation was introduced this morning.

Lastly, Thursday, February 4, will be another opposition day.

Labour

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour introduced Bill C-4, an act to take away employees' rights to a secret ballot vote.

During the last Parliament, I introduced Bill C-525, the employees voting rights act, which would give every worker the right to a mandatory secret ballot vote to determine if they wanted to be in a union or not. After a series of secret closed-door meetings with their big union boss friends, today's announcement shows once again that the Liberals are only in it for their big union boss friends.

Canadians elect their politicians with a secret ballot. Five provinces currently use secret ballots in their labour laws. When unions tried to challenge this in Saskatchewan, Justice Richards said, “The secret ballot, after all, is a hallmark of modern democracy.” He also said, “a secret ballot regime does no more than ensure that all employees are able to make the choices they see as being best for themselves.”

We are getting a clearer picture of how the Liberals think when it comes to the democratic process and the outcomes of elections. They apparently only support models that ensure they get the outcomes they want.