Honourable senators, I would like to thank the bill's sponsor and congratulate him on his objectivity. I think all senators strive to consider bills objectively and seek ways to improve them. The first time I read Bill C-7, several things jumped out at me, basic elements that should be part of a certification and collective bargaining system. I am therefore very pleased, honourable senators, to speak to Bill C-7 today.

This bill comes as a response to years of court proceedings. That is why we have to study it closely, particularly from the constitutional perspective laid out in Mounted Police Association of Ontario, a seminal 2015 Supreme Court decision on labour law.

It was a constitutional challenge brought by two private RCMP member associations seeking the right to bargain collectively on behalf of police officers. The justices had to rule on two issues. The first was the exclusion of RCMP members from the collective bargaining regime set out in the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The second was the non-unionized labour relations regime that had been in place for a number of years under the RCMP Regulations, the so-called Staff Relations Representative Program.

In Mounted Police Association of Ontario, the Supreme Court interpreted the constitutionality of the regime for negotiating working conditions in place at the RCMP in light of section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Paragraph 2(d) of the Charter is supposed to guarantee employees' right to associate in order to pursue their collective interests regarding their working conditions.

I must say, it is quite interesting to be debating Bill C-7 at the same time as Bill C-14, because they both involve issues on which the Supreme Court ruled in the past, in the 1990s and early 2000s. More recently, however, the Supreme Court completely changed its position on medical assistance in dying and on including the constitutional protection of the right to collective bargaining.

The judges found that the Staff Relations Representative Program excluded RCMP members from the scope of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and imposed a labour relations regime that left a lot of room for arbitrary decisions. "The Program," as it was known, was found to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court found, and I quote:

. . . a process of collective bargaining will not be meaningful if it denies employees the power to pursue their goals.

I want to draw your attention to this excerpt. The Supreme Court also stated:

.. . . excluding a specific class of employees from the labour relations regime in order to deny them the exercise of their freedom of association impermissibly breaches the constitutional rights of the affected employees.

Furthermore:

.. . . Parliament must not substantially interfere with the right of RCMP members to a meaningful process of collective bargaining. . . .

Honourable senators, the court found that the program's measures disrupted the balance that must exist between employees and employer.

I'm in total agreement with the principle on which this bill is based. I do not believe that we can compromise on the obligation to respect the constitutional right of the RCMP members to, as the Supreme Court has said: "associate for the purpose of meaningfully pursuing collective workplace goals."

However, we must consider the specific case before us now. We all recognize that the RCMP, as our national police force, is unique and that its members therefore need a proper balance of power in their collective bargaining.

Throughout the study, we must remember that the men and women affected by this bill, the front-line RCMP officers, put their lives in danger every day to protect us.

We must keep in mind the four RCMP officers who were shot in Mayerthorpe, Alberta. Recently, we were shocked by the brutal deaths of RCMP officers in Moncton, while they were serving our communities. These tragic events resonated during the testimony on Bill C-7 in the House of Commons, because this bill targets, in particular, the working conditions of the RCMP and their security equipment.

During the hearings at the House of Commons, MPs heard from a representative of the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, who reminded parliamentarians that RCMP agents, because of their work, are not civil servants. He said:

.We are not civil servants, yet we're being compared to civil servants. We are a national police agency and should be compared to the large police agencies like the OPP, Sûreté Du Québec, Toronto Metro, Vancouver PD and Winnipeg police.

Honourable senators, if this bill passes in its current form, it will have a serious impact on the collective bargaining rights of RCMP members and reservists. During the study in the House of Commons committee, witnesses, most of whom were current or former RCMP officers, shared some legitimate concerns. They referred to some real examples from other Canadian police forces.

Dear colleagues, as a lawyer who has argued many cases in public and labour law, and as someone who has taught labour relations in faculties of law, I must admit that I was shocked to learn how outdated the RCMP's labour relations regime was. I was also shocked to learn that this outdated regime at the RCMP, which was known as "the Program," could have serious consequences.

However, it is equally worrisome to see that, as Senator Campbell pointed out, the new collective bargaining regime proposed by the RCMP and the President of the Treasury Board is extremely limited in scope and application. It is a far cry from the parameters and structures around labour relations today.

Bill C-7 is very restrictive when it comes to what issues can be bargained collectively. Senator Campbell mentioned them, and I would like to reiterate them because I believe they are fundamental issues that need to be part of a collective agreement. They have been deliberately left out.

A collective agreement could not include transfers, which are a fairly frequent occurrence in a police force like the RCMP. The bill also excludes all of the following issues from the collective bargaining process: appointments; probation; discharges or demotions; conduct, including harassment; the basic requirements for carrying out the duties of an RCMP member; and the uniform, order of dress and equipment. Yes, you heard me right.

Personally, I have never seen something like this. Just about the only things left are pay, leave and binding arbitration, if the parties do not agree.

Honourable senators, as the Supreme Court said, when it comes to labour law, one of the fundamental purposes of section 2(d) of the Charter is to ensure that, by banding together in the pursuit of common goals, individuals are able to prevent more powerful entities from thwarting their legitimate goals and desires.

Obviously, it is legitimate for workers to want to negotiate issues related to workplace safety. An RCMP officer appeared before the House of Commons committee to explain how important it was, when negotiating working conditions, to be able to negotiate vital equipment, such as safety or bulletproof vests that can protect police officers from long-range rifles. However, as I said, this is excluded.

Over the past few years, we have heard troubling stories in the media about workplace harassment, including at the RCMP. It is surprising that the bill excludes conduct at work from collective bargaining. In fact, the legislation even expressly proposes to exclude harassment. It was not clear that this issue was related to conduct, so it is specified for greater certainty.

A number of witnesses in the other place shared similar concerns about such a sensitive issue, at a time when our national police force is working on becoming more diverse.

Honourable senators, I think it is important for the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to take a close look at what is excluded from negotiation. If the Supreme Court recognized that RCMP members have the right to form an association to negotiate their working conditions, how can Parliament exclude so many of the factors that should be part of the negotiations to the point that negotiation becomes virtually meaningless?

The clauses relating to arbitration cover only elements that can be included in negotiation, yet arbitration is an essential process when problems arise during collective bargaining.

Leland Keane, a board member from the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada declared:

.In regard to arbitration, we want an arbitrator to independently consider all relevant factors and weigh those. Factors such as classification of employees would be something that we would be interested in having in the collective agreement. RCMP members are not civil servants, and it's not relevant to compare us to other civil servants.

That, dear colleagues, is something else the committee could examine.

I would also like to draw your attention to another point arising from the Supreme Court ruling. The court determined that section 2(d) guarantees the right to meaningful collective bargaining and the right to make meaningful collective representations. The Supreme Court went even further by clarifying that there are two parts to these two concepts.

The first is employee choice. In a democratic organization, the certification process or the selection of the bargaining agent must involve a secret ballot vote to ensure that all members can make their choice with respect to certification freely. However, Bill C-7 does not codify that employee choice, which, in our modern democracy, involves a secret ballot in the legislation of nearly every Canadian province.

The collective rights of RCMP members 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 should be conducted in a way that conforms to our democratic principles, which is by secret ballot. Bill C-7 should reflect that, because it is a fundamental principle.

In my labour law practice — and my colleagues who were RCMP members can confirm this — I learned that there can be no balance of power in the collective bargaining process if the only issue on the table is salary. The court said so itself when it stipulated, and I quote:

.The process fails to achieve the balance between employees and employer that is essential to meaningful collective bargaining, and leaves members in a disadvantaged, vulnerable position.

. . . The guarantee entrenched in s. 2 (d) of the Charter cannot be indifferent to power imbalances in the labour relations context. To sanction such indifference would be to ignore "the historical origins of the concepts enshrined" in s. 2 (d).

Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether this bill, in its current form, respects the rights of the men and women dedicated to the services of the RCMP, those men and women who put their lives on the line to protect the security of Canadians.

We must ask ourselves, honourable senators, whether Bill C-7 is consistent with the spirit and the letter of what the Supreme Court deliberately chose to require of Parliament. I would add that we need to determine whether this bill is consistent with the case law.

The Supreme Court was very clear in its interpretation as set out in Mounted Police Association of Ontario, and I quote:

.Just as a ban on employee association impairs freedom of association, so does a labour relations process that substantially interferes with the possibility of having meaningful collective negotiations on workplace matters. Similarly, a process of collective bargaining will not be meaningful if it denies employees the power to pursue their goals.

I therefore invite you, dear colleagues, to vote in favour of Bill C-7 at second reading so that it can be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence for an in-depth study. I am confident that the questions that Senator Campbell and I raised about the bill will be examined.

Who knows? Perhaps we will find ways to improve this bill, since the Senate has a duty to ensure that bills are consistent with our country's legal framework, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would be unfortunate if this bill, which is supposed to respond to RCMP officers' wishes, were to become just another burden for them to bear.

Thank you.