Honourable senators, I rise to speak on Bill C-7. First I want to express my gratitude to Senator Campbell for sponsoring this legislation.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Harder: In particular, for supporting the bill's intention and respecting the RCMP members' constitutionally protected freedom of association.

I also want to thank all senators, particularly those on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, for their efforts to improve Bill C-7. I am sure and want to confirm that the government will carefully consider this chamber's advice. I was going to say they will appreciate the Senate performing this function, but that might be overstating it.

An Hon. Senator: No, no, no.

Senator Harder: But I do think it's my responsibility as the Government Representative in the Senate to raise some of the ongoing concerns and amendments that are at this point difficult for the government and will require a period of reflection.

With respect to secret ballots, the government has reservations that the bill as amended would mandate a secret ballot regime. As you know, the previous Parliament confronted the issue of secret ballots with Bill C-525. Many senators opposed that legislation with concerns about its effects on collective bargaining processes.

The government intends to repeal Bill C-525 with Bill C-4; however, it is not that the government is completely against secret ballots. Bill C-4 will give the labour board discretion over the certification method. They would decide whether a secret ballot or a card check would be used for certification and make sure that members' interests are reflected in that choice.

As the minister said in committee, Bill C-7 was intentionally silent on this issue. In the government's view, there is no reason for the RCMP to be treated separately in regard to secret ballots, and a consistent approach is desirable from the government's perspective for all federal employee associations.

However, it is the proper role for the Senate to raise such concerns where the senators may find them. And, again, I thank the senators for your amendments in that sense.

I would like to have a word on exclusions. The government has reservations about amendments with respect to exclusions. Given that the RCMP members are both police officers and public servants, the government has concerns about what impact that amendment would have on the overall federal public service labour relations regime.

Within that framework, matters of broad cross-sectional interests, such as staffing, pensions, organization of work and assignment of duties, are excluded from bargaining. Such matters are dealt with under other legislation to ensure the public interest is properly taken into account.

Staffing issues, for example, are excluded from bargaining to ensure appointments rely on a merit-based approach and support a non-partisan public service. They were dealt with under the Public Service Employment Act.

Pensions are dealt with under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Pensions require a high degree of stability to assure pension plan members that their benefits are secure and will be delivered as expected.

The very nature of the collective bargaining process may be perceived as a threat to this level of security and stability in the federal regime. However, the federal government has traditionally consulted with employee representatives on pension issues and is committed to continuing this practice.

For example, each of the major federal pension plans has a pension advisory committee, consisting of representatives from management, plan members, retirees who provide advice to the Treasury Board on matters related to the administration plan design and funding.

While I appreciate the work of many senators in examining subjects excluded from the bargaining table, the government takes the view that these subjects are properly dealt with elsewhere within the federal public service relations regime.

In particular, there is concern that with Bill C-7, if subjects originally excluded in this bill are brought within the bargaining process, the precedent would be set and might impact the wider public service, and this could have significant cost implications for the government.

In the RCMP context, cost implications could be downloaded to other orders of government that contract RCMP services at fixed percentages. The government also has a concern that removal of these exclusions could adversely impact the commissioner's authority under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

And as ministers mentioned in committee, other avenues exist outside the collective bargaining process to ensure the voices of the RCMP members and other public servants can be heard. For example, various committees are established in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. This last act requires that departments establish labour management relations committees to deal with workplace issues such as harassment and the disclosure of wrongdoing.

As you know, the elimination of harassment is a salient matter in the entire debate in committee, and it is one that the government shares in principle, although it has a different approach than the one that is recommended in the amendments before us.

Finally, I'd like to speak about amendments that relate to the grievance process. One amendment deals with the process under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, while others deal with processes under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

In Bill C-7, the grievance process set out in the Public Service Labour Relations Act would apply solely to grievances of matters arising from the interpretation and application of the collective agreement. All other grievances would be referred to internal recourse processes under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and regulations.

The amendments in question provide that any grievance relating to a term and condition of employment, whether it is determined by collective agreement, directive, regulation or statute, must be presented under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. As a result, a member who is dissatisfied with the assignment of shifts or transfer to another division, for example, must proceed through the Public Service Labour Relations Act, even if a specialized internal process already exists within the RCMP for that purpose.

By shifting all grievance processes to terms and conditions of employment from the RCMP grievance process to the PSLRA, this amendment would constitute a major policy shift. Because the range of issues that can constitute a term or condition of employment is so broad, there is a risk that internal administrative processes of the RCMP would unduly be weakened.

However, while these are the government concerns, I would like to reiterate my gratitude to Senator Campbell for shepherding this legislation and to all senators who have been active on the committee, in particular Senator White, with whom I have had the pleasure of having some important conversations.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Harder: I will be voting for Bill C-7.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Harder: Because I believe it is important for the Government Representative in the Senate to ensure that the legislative process proceeds appropriately. We are collectively — and I am reflecting that in my vote — referencing back the views of this Senate to the other chamber.

Honourable senators, it is also important, as you see me vote yes, to understand that, as the Government Representative in the Senate, I want to make sure that all senators know where the government stands with respect to these amendments. I hope that in the coming days and weeks we can find ways of seeking a resolution between the Senate Chamber and the government, and obviously, and ultimately, the other chamber and back here. This will require some period of reflection and some conversations, both formal and informal, which I take upon myself as having an obligation to participate in on your behalf.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Senate Liberals): Would Senator Harder take a question?

Senator Harder: Of course.

Senator Fraser: First, thank you very much for that extremely interesting conclusion to your speech. No, truly. That's sincere thanks.

I have two quick questions. The first is: Are there any amendments in the committee report that the government thinks might have merit?

Senator Harder: I would begin my response by thanking the honourable senator for her comments.

We are an evolving institution. I would suggest that as we move forward there will be occasions, such as this, where this chamber has a different view from the other. As I said in my maiden speech — and as I repeated again last week — I do believe that my role is to be both representative of the government in this chamber and, ultimately, at the appropriate time, representative to the other chamber.

Indeed, as Senator Martin was coming across the aisle just before we started consideration of this bill, she told me there was a tornado warning. I thought perhaps she was introducing the bill herself!

With respect to the specific question, at this time I would not want to specifically state which amendments or which exclusions the government might be prepared to accept, but I can assure all honourable senators that that is a conversation that the government is open to, and I expect and intend to pursue that.

Senator Fraser: On my second question, I'm going to count on you to correct, if necessary, my memory. It is my recollection that last year the party that eventually won the election campaigned on an explicit promise to revoke Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. Is my recollection accurate?

Senator Harder: That is correct, and that's why I referenced it in my comments and put in context the government's policy framework for Bill C-7 as it arrived here.

In my comments, I simply want to reiterate to this chamber the views of the government with respect to the provisions that have now been recommended and amended in committee so that the full chamber is aware of the policy reference to Bill C-4.

Senator Carignan: Senator Harder, you talked about the policy change in the bill. It's 2016, as everyone seems to be saying now. Is it normal in 2016 that when the decision to dismiss a person under the RCMP Act is appealed, the last person to rule on the appeal is the same person who did the dismissing in the first place?

Is it normal that the person who decides to transfer an employee, uproot him from St. John's, Newfoundland, and send him and his family to Yellowknife, is the same person who makes the final decision on the subsequent grievance?

In my opinion, the most powerful person in Canada is the Commissioner of the RCMP because he can dismiss 21,000 people and it is up to him to rule on the appeal for dismissing those 21,000 people.

Is it normal in 2016 to have such a system? That is what we are trying to avoid with the amended bill.

Senator Harder: Honourable senators, I'm not sure it will be particularly helpful for us to engage in a conversation about the amendments that are before us.

Senator Carignan: That's the essence of the debate.

Senator Harder: I will answer your question, because I do feel it's important for the government to be seized of these amendments and have a process of reflection.

What I can convey to the honourable senator is that he has raised, in his question and indeed in the amendments, a significant and important point of view that the government is going to have to reflect on. My role at this point is to simply assure honourable senators that that reflection will take place. It would be presumptive of me at this point to respond either hostilely to your question —

Senator Carignan: No, not hostile; friendly.

Senator Harder: — or favourably to your question, because it is not my role to accept on behalf of the government, on the eve of the amendments being voted on, the position that the government might at some point take.

I would like, though, to underscore — and here I think we can all agree — that Bill C-7 is a broader discussion of the RCMP, its style of management, its role in our society and its own evolution with respect to getting into 2016 and 2017. These matters are worthy of a broader conversation than simply the amendments before us. I think the Senate has done us a service, frankly, in ensuring those questions are now not only in the consciousness of the government but in the broader public in its debate.

Senator Jaffer: Senator Harder, I appreciated your comments. I also appreciated what you said to Senator Carignan. I'm not asking you to comment on each exemption, but I'm asking of you, when you are speaking to the government, to especially look at the harassment exemption. As you know, Senator Mitchell led the fight here in the Senate and the National Security and Defence Committee tabled a report in 2013 on the issue of harassment in the RCMP. I respectfully ask you, in your negotiations, to please, at least on my behalf, convey that. That's something I'd have difficulty with if they didn't look at it carefully.

Senator Harder: I want to assure the honourable senator and indeed all senators that I am very cognizant of the issues around harassment, and in my comments I specifically referenced the need to deal with harassment in the RCMP. I have benefited greatly, frankly, in the last number of weeks from conversations off-line with Senators White and Campbell, who have a greater knowledge of the RCMP from personal experience than certainly I do and perhaps even a number of other senators.

Hon. Serge Joyal: Would the honourable leader entertain another question?

Senator Harder: Certainly.

Senator Joyal: I was listening carefully when you presented the position of the government. My interest was piqued when you mentioned that we have to reflect on a process through which we would resolve the position taken by the Senate in relation to some bills and the way that they are received in the other place.

Last week we had such an experience; now we have another one. The Rules of the Senate, at Chapter 16, propose some avenue to try to resolve differences. I am concerned that we have entered into a way of addressing the solution to that dilemma such that the Senate proposes the amendments and then the government reacts like father knows best. It seems to me that there should be a more consensual procedure to arrive at a way to resolve those different points of view. The way, in my opinion, to resolve those different points of view would be to develop the procedure of conference that is included at section 16-3(5) of the rules.

Would the Leader of the Government agree that this house appoint a small task force to reflect upon that and come back this fall with some proposals or options that could be freely debated in the chamber? We would then have a better process to resolve those issues and avoid the frustration that I think some senators will certainly be sent to face, as I said, the call of government authority, especially when there are principles at stake, as Senator White, Senator Campbell and Senator Carignan have been extensively exposing to us, on such a principle you can't be judge and party at the same time.

Those are the points that concern me. If we are to, as you stated quite properly, evolve as a chamber, we have to find a way, through the joint effort of senators on all sides of the chamber, to come to a reasonable approach to solve those issues.

Senator Harder: I thank the honourable senator for his comment and suggestion. Tonight would not be the occasion for me to make such a commitment, but I note the comments made, and I will reflect upon that.

I do hope that as we move forward, we will find ways of dealing with situations like the ones we face and will do so in a spirit of civil engagement and broad examination of how best to proceed.