OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

¹

1545

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.))

Ms. Nycole Turmel (National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada)

¹

1550

¹

1555

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Hassan Yussuff (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress)

º

1600

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. René Roy (Secretary General, Quebec Federation of Labour)

º

1605

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

º

1610

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Paul Forseth

º

1615

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Émile Vallée (Political Adviser, Quebec Federation of Labour)

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

º

1620

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Nycole Turmel

º

1625

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

Ms. Nycole Turmel

º

1630

Ms. Kate Rogers (Coordinator, Collective Bargaining Branch, Public Service Alliance of Canada)

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. René Roy

Mr. Émile Vallée

º

1635

Ms. Nycole Turmel

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Émile Vallée

º

1640

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mme Nycole Turmel

º

1645

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. René Roy

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Nycole Turmel

º

1650

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Nycole Turmel

º

1655

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

»

1700

Ms. Nycole Turmel

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Paul Szabo

»

1705

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

»

1710

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Ms. Jacquie de Aguayo (Legal Officer, Collective Bargaining Branch, Public Service Alliance of Canada)

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Jacquie de Aguayo

»

1715

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Ken Epp

»

1720

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Ken Epp

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Ms. Nycole Turmel

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

»

1725

Ms. Nycole Turmel

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Nycole Turmel

M. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Émile Vallée

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Émile Vallée

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Émile Vallée

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Émile Vallée

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 025

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1545)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order and resume our review of Bill C-25.

    I'd like to welcome the witnesses to our afternoon session. We have the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the Quebec Federation of Labour. We're going to start with the Public Service Alliance. Please introduce anyone who might be at the table with you. Again, thank you for coming, and we look forward to your remarks.

    I should mention, and I'm sure the clerk has done so already, that the committee has voiced some concern on numerous occasions that the testimony is perhaps a bit too vague. We're really looking for specifics and to really get into the minutiae of the bill, so any recommendations or suggestions you might have to improve the bill would be very helpful.

    I know members will look forward to hearing what you have to say, and then we'll have a question and answer session as well.

[Translation]

    Ms. Nycole Turmel (National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Jacquie de Aguayo, from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, as well as Kate Rogers, will be with me for the presentation, which will be in French. You have received our brief, in which we outline the details, but I would like to raise several specific points in my presentation.

    The Public Service Alliance of Canada has long held the position that the existing legislation is flawed and should be replaced by the Canada Labour Code.

    From our perspective, the Canada Labour Code provides a much better framework for labour-management relations in that it recognizes that all of the terms and conditions affecting a worker's employment can, and should be, negotiated between the employer and the union. Under the Canada Labour Code, for example, areas of great concern to PSAC members, such as staffing and classification, are clearly within the scope of collective bargaining. Under the new act, they are not.

    We have a number of specific concerns about Bill C-25, which I will explain in some detail. We think that some provisions can be improved, while others should not be included at all. Having said that, at no time should our comments be construed as replacing our position that federal public sector workers should fall under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code, or new legislation that incorporates its principles.

    For the purpose of this presentation, I will highlight the provisions dealing with the merit principle and essential services, and other issues, in the same order as they appear in the bill. I will begin with the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

    The PSAC welcomes the formal recognition in the act of the consultation committees that already exist and the mandatory establishment of such committees at the departmental level. However, there is no obligation for the parties to consult in good faith, nor is there a mechanism for resolving differences, should an impasse arise. As such, this legislation requires the parties to establish committees that may then legitimately be ignored.

    It is difficult to conceive of any circumstance which would lead the PSAC to agree to two-tier bargaining if this provision remains in its current form. We are particularly concerned that the section does not make it clear how this process relates to collective bargaining under section 106. We question not only whether it was intended that any matter, including rates of pay, be the subject of two-tier bargaining, but also how disputes are to be resolved. This provision is so vague as to render it unworkable, and must not be left to regulation to clarify.

    The essential services provisions of the new legislation broaden the definition of essential services and give the employer the exclusive right to determine the level of essential services required and the frequency with which these services are to be provided.

    Furthermore, the Public Service Labour Relations Board cannot take into account whether there is managerial staff available and able to provide the essential services, nor can it require the employer to change hours of work or use overtime in order to facilitate the delivery of such services.

    Because of other amendments, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to keep track of which positions are designated and which ones are not. In the long run, these provisions are likely to increase picket-line problems, rather than eliminate them.

    We accept that some form of an essential services provision is inevitable. What offends us about this one, however, is that it goes much further than is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the public, and is instead designed, in the guise of protecting essential services, not only to insulate the employer from feeling the effects of a strike, but to deter union members from exercising their constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to picket.

¹  (1550)  

    We are disappointed that the government has failed to lift the limitations on the scope of bargaining in section 150. It is our view that the government has, in fact, extended the limitations on free collective bargaining by inserting new factors into section 148 that an arbitration board must take into account when fashioning an arbitral award.

    We are also disappointed to note that the new legislation has removed the right of arbitration boards or of a public interest commission to order the production of documents that may be of relevance in matters before them. We believe that full disclosure is critical to the successful resolution of disputes.

    Section 199 stipulates that no person shall attempt to impede or prevent designated employees from entering or leaving their place of work. As mentioned previously, the essential services provisions contained in this bill would make it very difficult to know who is designated and who is not.

    Consequently, an employee could breach this section without even realizing it. To add insult to injury, under section 200, this same employee could then be convicted of a summary conviction offence for having violated section 199.

    Likewise, under section 202(1), every officer or representative of the union who is found to have applied an unfair labour practice, as described in sections 187 and 188, would be guilty of a summary conviction offence. Not surprisingly, there is no analogous liability placed on employer representatives. The extension of personal responsibility to officers and representatives of the union is particularly offensive to us since it will undoubtedly discourage many members from taking an active part in their union.

    Draconian measures such as these, which could turn union representatives into criminals, have no place in legislation purporting to improve labour-management relations.

    I would now like to address part 3 of C-25, the Public Service Employment Act. In tabling the new PSEA, the government has told Parliament, this committee, the public, employee organizations, and its own employees that part 3 is enabling legislation.

    After having reviewed this part of the bill, the PSAC is compelled to ask: What will Bill C-25 enable?

    The preamble states that Canada will continue to benefit from a public service where appointments to positions are based on merit, that the principle of merit will be independently safeguarded, and those exercising staffing authority will be accountable to the Public Service Commission, an independent tribunal and Parliament.

    There is, however, a troubling contradiction between the preamble's stated intent and the framework provisions of the bill. Part 3 of Bill C-25, in its current form, represents a wholesale retreat from a public service defined by the appointment of the best-qualified individuals. Bill C-25 delivers on its promise of increased flexibility for management, but contains very little protection for employees or the principle of merit. And, we would argue, very little accountability.

    Bill C-25 delegates the authority to staff positions in the public service to the lowest possible managerial levels. It continues to exclude staffing from collective bargaining and thus continues to exclude duly-certified employee organizations from voicing concerns on behalf of their members. Bill C-25 unambitiously defines merit by the standard of the minimally qualified, thereby downplaying the immense expertise and insight that public service employees can, and do, bring to their work.

¹  (1555)  

Bill C-25 creates a right of recourse that is so exceptionally narrow as to render the staffing process largely immune from scrutiny by tribunals, the Public Service Commission and, ultimately, Parliament.

    In doing so, the PSAC fears that the new PSEA has the potential to usher in a new era of patronage, favouritism and a lack of accountability that is inconsistent with the government's stated objectives.

    If that were not enough, Bill C-25 has the potential to create a public service characterized by front-line managers with the direct authority to affect the career advancement of employees who speak out in the face of mismanagement or wrongdoing, who exercise recourse or grievance rights, who are union activitists or who provide representation on behalf of their co-workers. Will employees be as willing to speak out if they fear that their opportunities for career advancement could be blocked by a manager? Will they speak out knowing that a manager cannot be faulted for considering only one individual for appointment? At a time when stakeholders from across Canada, including the PSAC, are crying out for improved whistle-blower protections, Bill C-25 has the potential to place a chill on any form of activity designed to expose wrongdoing in the workplace.

    For these reasons, the PSAC has proposed several amendments, which appear in our written submission and reflect our concerns regarding the definition of merit, as well as other major issues like employee mobility, political activity, and the right to recourse as it relates to nominations and deployments. We also want to emphasize the importance of adequately training managers responsible for resolving staffing issues to ensure that they are in a position to carry out these duties properly.

    You will agree that public service employees are the most valuable assets the public service has. Silencing them, and their unions, by providing limited recourse rights and independent safeguards severely hampers our ability to scrutinize the government's management practices and to hold managerial authority to the high standard that responsible government in Canada requires.

    In closing, I wish to remind you of the government's reasons for adopting the Canada Labour Code:

(AND WHEREAS) the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interest of Canada in ensuring a just sharing of the fruits of progress to all.

    Unfortunately, the government seems to have abandoned these principles in drafting legislation for its own workers. We regret to say that this bill, if passed into law, will not bring the harmony in labour-management relations that the government has promised.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Merci.

    The Canadian Labour Congress, please.

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress): Mr. Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this afternoon with my colleagues from the PSAC and the FTQ.

    I want to start by apologizing for not having our submissions translated for the committee.

    Let me begin.

    The Canadian Labour Congress is pleased to be given the opportunity to join the Public Service Alliance and the Quebec Federation of Labour to address the committee on the Public Service Modernization Act.

    The Canadian Labour Congress represents 2.5 million workers, over 1 million of whom are public sector workers at all levels of government. We have worked with our members in all jurisdictions to improve the legislation under which they are employed and negotiate. We strongly concur with the Public Service Alliance that the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act are seriously flawed and outdated and should have been replaced many years ago. In our minds, there is no doubt that these pieces of legislation should have been replaced by the Canada Labour Code, which more appropriately reflects the collective bargaining relationship between unions and the employer, and which would actively reflect the wishes and aspirations of federal government workers.

    I'd like to limit my oral presentation to just two issues: bargaining rights, and collective bargaining and collective agreements. Proposed sections 59 to 63 and 71 to 78 in Bill C-25, dealing with managerial and confidential positions, overturn the long-recognized presumption in labour relations that all positions described in the certificate are bargaining unit positions unless the employer can justify their exclusion. This onus is placed on all private sector employers, many provincial governments, crown corporations, agencies, school boards, hospitals, and municipalities. There is no reason not to require the Government of Canada to meet the same tests.

    The CLC endorses the changes suggested by the PSAC to amend the notice to bargain collectively to four months. Our experience is such that we know that in large public sector bargaining units in particular, the sooner the parties get to the table and start negotiating the better the chance of reaching a negotiated settlement.

    We also agree with the PSAC that the essential service provisions in the new legislation combine the worst features of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code, and extend them further than any other piece of legislation the union operates under or knows about.

    We are particularly concerned about the amount of overkill in the section that sets out prohibitions for employers relating to strikes. These provisions, which cover three pages of text, are excessive. Our Canada Labour Code managed to accomplish the same end in a simple provision, which has already been pointed out to you.

    In general, the Canadian Labour Congress views the proposed amendments as a waste of opportunity to actually modernize the labour relations framework in the federal public service. Bill C-25 is described more accurately as a guarantee of employers' managerial rights at the expense of individual employees and their unions. We do not believe it will create a labour relations regime marked by consultation and inclusiveness, but will instead exacerbate differences and tip the power balance more towards individual mangers and supervisors.

    We endorse and support the position taken by the Public Service Alliance of Canada on other aspects of Bill C-25 and respectfully ask the committee to acknowledge that our combined experience in labour relations should be respected by the government, and that the views of the union be given the credence they deserve.

    I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to make these points.

º  (1600)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you very much.

    Now, the Quebec Federation of Labour.

[Translation]

    Mr. René Roy (Secretary General, Quebec Federation of Labour): Good afternoon, I am accompanied by Emile Vallée, political advisor at the FTQ. My name is René Roy, and I am the Secretary General of the FTQ, which represents some 500,000 members in 30 unions and 2,100 locals in all industry sectors in Quebec.

    The vast majority of them, or more than 400,000, work in sectors under provincial jurisdiction, including 50,000 in the provincial public sector and 50,000 in the municipal sector. Moreover, roughly 60,000 of them are covered by the Canada Labour Code, and 35,000 are members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and are covered by the Public Service Staff Relations Act of Canada, which explains our presence here today.

    Our labour relation experience, therefore, covers three labour laws. We are appearing before you to support the Public Service Alliance of Canada and its members in Quebec.

    What we find most striking is the major difficulty the Canadian government is having recognizing rights for its employees that it guarantees in the Canada Labour Code to employees in the private and parapublic sector, including Air Canada, Canada Post, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the railway sector, the banks, and Bell Canada. This difficulty is apparent in the preamble of the bill. In reading it, we can clearly see the emphasis on public interest that the government is contrasting with the rights of employees to free collective bargaining, as if the right to free collective bargaining were an obstacle in the way of the public interest, a right which, in passing, is recognized in International Labour Organization conventions and in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This opposition is present throughout the bill and is apparent in the government's control over all normal and customary labour relations management mechanisms.

    Thus, the government is refusing to share responsibility for defining who may be unionized, who may be considered essential, who may have a say in hiring, evaluating employment, managing the retirement fund, and mechanisms for resolving conflicts of interest and even rights-related issues, etc. In short, the government has reserved all of these rights.

    The FTQ believes that this approach is contrary to workers' rights, contrary to the establishment of a climate of responsible relations and contrary to the implementation of a modern state apparatus. The FTQ agrees that as legislator, the government remains the final judge of public interest in terms of conflict of interest with its employees; elected officials must have the last say, because they are accountable to the electorate. This is the case in all jurisdictions we are familiar with.

    As an employer, however, the government is responsible for recognizing, for its own employees, all of the rights it recognizes for employees in the private and parapublic sectors. In our opinion, it is in the public interest to treat employees of the federal public service as full-fledged employees. There is no opposition between the right to free collective bargaining and public interest. Air Canada, Canada Post, the port authorities, the airports, the transportation sector, Bell Canada, hospitals, schools, and power companies are all sectors that are important if not essential for our society, as are a number of government services in the federal public service. However, their employees and the unions they choose have rights that Bill C-25 denies to public service employees.

    Secondly, allow me to say a few words about the situation I am the most familiar with. In Quebec, government employees, in other words public servants, teachers, employees in hospitals, schools, Hydro-Quebec, all have the right to form a union and to negotiate, with the exception of members of certain professional groups like doctors and engineers, who cannot unionize, but who have well-structured organizations that nevertheless negotiate with the government.

    Public and parapublic sector employees are covered by the same Labour Code that covers the private sector. Thus, the government must, like other employers, prove to a third party that a given employee should be excluded from a bargaining unit, or that a given employee should be considered essential in the event of conflict, and negotiate the application of pay equity, job assessment programs and the pension plan with unions.

    Does recognizing employee rights prevent the government from governing? Does it prevent the government from managing the public service or the school system?

º  (1605)  

Absolutely not. Does a strong union presence make it easier to govern? Of course not, but it is the price to pay in a democracy and in recognizing rights guaranteed by the Charter.

    In conclusion, allow me to remind you that the Advisory Committee on Labour Management Relations in the Federal Public Service took an in-depth look and reached a strong consensus on aspects of a modern, participatory approach. We are disappointed that the government has chosen to ignore the expertise and experience contained in the Fryer Report and that instead, it has opted for a petty, fearful, old-fashioned and paternalistic approach.

    Our colleagues at the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the CLC, like representatives of other unions who have appeared before you, have identified the clauses in the bill that run counter to recognizing the right to free collective bargaining.

    Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Merci.

    Before we go to questions, I would just like to remind everyone to please reference the page number and clause as you go through the bill so that everyone has the ability to get on the same page.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    In the first round of questioning I'm going to talk about three subjects you may want to comment on--proposed section 110, two-tier bargaining; the issue of the merit principle, which is on page 124 of the bill; and the definition of political activity.

    First of all, I see the comments here about two-tier bargaining. You're saying it's a somewhat vague clause and very difficult, from your perspective. Yet the concept of two-tier bargaining in the public service is quite common. In British Columbia we've had two-tier bargaining since the 1970s, or at least since 1972, and it's fairly well established.

    I'm just wondering, if this particular issue is of difficulty, if you can comment with some specific wording that would get us out of the difficulty.

    Related to the issue of merit, the term has been used here--which we've heard in many different sectors--the “watering down” of the merit principle. That comment has been made by many. If that is so, could you give us a suggested wording in that definition to get us out of the quagmire?

    My last point is about political activity. I've said a lot about it, maybe I've said too much, but it does seem to be somewhat too restrictive a prescription. Again, I would like some specific comments about the section, and rather than generalities, some wording to provide reasonable flexibility to encourage people who are in the public service to get involved politically.

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: I will start by talking about the two-tier bargaining.

    It's not clear in the proposed legislation the way it will be done and whether it would include wages and everything. We believe if you want to do two-tier bargaining, you have to have full consent of all the parties.

    That's one thing.

    I want to talk about the merit principle. I know a lot of people were talking about the merit principle and its impact. I will suggest a few things.

    We believe all individuals should meet all the qualifications of a position, not just the essentials. You should remove the clause stating that it is not inconsistent with merit to assess only one individual for appointment, removing the wide discretion to make a selection for appointment by taking into account discretionary factors such as qualification or operational requirements that may be assets to the current and future needs of the public service and making appointments subject to appeal to the tribunal on the basis that the appointment was contrary to the act or was based on irrelevant considerations.

    I want to talk about the code also. I think it was René who expressed that in the Labour Code the staffing is negotiable. We have seen this example where Canada Post used to be under the same legislation as we are today and they went to the Canada Labour Code. Instead of having a negative impact, it has had a positive impact. The redress, the arbitration, the process to resolve the problems was a lot shorter than it is right now. And it is a problem.

    We believe you can also take care of possible problems in the legislation right now and still recognize that staffing should be under negotiation.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Does anyone else want to comment on the three areas I mentioned? For example, in the other in-depth comment about the merit principle, because the definition...the critical line that I see is:

the Commission is satisfied that the person to be appointed meets the essential qualifications for the work to be performed, as established by the deputy head

    That's the nut of it. I'm looking for some innovative wording or some new wording or additional wording that's going to solve the political comment that we've heard across the country. Not too many people like it, but I'm not getting too many positive solutions. So if you raise an issue, provide the answer.

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: On the political activities, you can look at our brief on page 35. That's where we talk about it. Applying this part means carrying on activities. That's the one we're addressing, and on page 36.

    On the definition of merit principle, go to page 29 and some recommendations we are putting in this part of our brief. I said the word “essential” ought to be deleted. As well, we should amend to allow persons employed in the core of public administration to apply for positions in separate agencies. In the proposed legislation, if you work for an agency, you can apply inside the public sector. But if you work in the public sector, you cannot apply for the agency. We believe it should be open both ways.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Is there any further comment?

    Mr. Vallée.

    Mr. Émile Vallée (Political Adviser, Quebec Federation of Labour): Well, it's not on the merit principle. It's on two-tier bargaining, if I may.

    It seems to me that two-tier bargaining does make a lot of sense. Obviously, there are a number of things that can be settled at the central table and there are other issues that make better sense being discussed locally. However, it seems to me this is not something you legislate. It is something the parties themselves should decide how best to handle. It's for the parties themselves to decide which issue should be done centrally and which issue should be done locally. This is how it's done.

    My experience is in the private sector. We have large negotiations--chain bargaining--and that's usually how it's done. At the central table we decide that some issues don't make sense for us to handle and should be better handled at the local level. Then it is sent to the local level. But some issues may come back from the local level to the central level at a later stage. It depends on the time. It depends on how things are being approved. But this is something that should be done by the parties themselves.

    Doing it through legislation, it seems to me, is locking the parties...you're binding their hands before they even start bargaining.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: That doesn't seem to be the way I read the section. It says the act may jointly elect to engage in collective bargaining respecting any terms and conditions. It simply envisions two-tier bargaining, but it leaves it up to the parties. I don't see it as being as prescriptive, as you describe. Maybe I'm not catching something there; maybe I'm missing something.

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: The problem we have with that is there is no time limit in this. There is no dispute resolution process. Also, you have to put a limitation on what can be bargained at the second tier. What we heard in the past, through briefing, is that everything that has money impact, if it is discussed at the second-tier level, could have an impact on the first-tier level when you're all together to negotiate the main agreement. This is a problem for us.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: My experience is that the lower-level tier is usually unusual staffing schedules for distance people or people in institutions and so on, different types of local circumstances related to what is deemed overtime and what isn't, whereas at the macro level, it's a percentage, it's a 4% increase, it's a 5% increase, those kinds of things.

    Certainly, I'll have another look at it. But your evidence is on the record now that proposed section 110 on page 39 of the bill is a particular problem for you, and we'll have to take note of that.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you.

    Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome all of our witnesses.

    Quite some time ago, I started talking about staffing and appointments with other witnesses. I am happy to see that I was not out in left field in saying that I thought broadening the notion of merit smacked of favouritism. In the absence of union-negotiated criteria, I do not understand how this bill came to be, as for the past three or four years, the government has been boasting about all the consulting it has been doing.

    Were you consulted? That makes no sense whatsoever. I am hearing some people say it is black and black or, if you prefer, white. Make it white, and they will say we're the ones saying it is black; it will be easier and less pejorative. I cannot believe what I am hearing today about this step backward, which boils down to saying that broadening the notion of merit as the government attempts to accelerate the process, absolutely means tipping the scale in the other direction, disregarding all existing jurisprudence and all existing criteria to renegotiate other criteria. But you are not at all involved in clause 29 or 30. I am very surprised by that.

    So you have sort of answered my questions, but how can we take action, because it is clear that if we propose amendments to call for the application of the Canada Labour Code or the former criteria, they will be rejected, because for them, there has to be a new amendment?

    My question is for both organizations, the FTQ and the Public Service Alliance of Canada. How can we speed up staffing or appointments while protecting employees' rights?

º  (1620)  

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: As regards consultation, it is very clear that unions were not consulted in this process. The committee's intention was to come up with amendments and a bill quite quickly. We were given accurate information after that.

    Let's go back to the definition or the problem of staffing. The PSAC has always very clearly stated that the process was flawed. The process is not transparent, nor is it very clear. The system has been modified to a certain extent, and we agree with that.

    Now, in coming up with a solution, have rights been restricted in such a way that it creates other problems and that the principle of natural justice is not respected? As we mentioned, it is possible to appeal and lodge a complaint based on two issues, favouritism or language as such. That does restrict the power to lodge a complaint and it creates a working environment that may be increasingly difficult.

    Moreover, the bill has delegated or wants to delegate authority over staffing. What is the role of the Public Service Commission when an unfair situation is identified? Based on my understanding, the commission has the power to make recommendations. In terms of redress, future powers of the Public Service Commission under this act have not been clearly established.

    So that is a problem for us. We do not think it will resolve the morale problems in the public service, nor do we think it will resolve the problem that the government wants to avoid, in other words, appeals and jurisprudence. On the contrary, we think it will give rise to other problems and that the public service will not be as the government intended.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Exactly. They want to change the culture of the public service, and the risk they're running if complaints are limited to two issues... Between you and me, it boils down to one thing: we are talking about abuse of power, and nothing more, because being evaluated in one's first language is a problem that is quite easy to resolve; there must not be many appeals on that. Do you have any specific amendments or changes to propose to increase opportunities to lodge complaints? Or would it simply be enough to propose an amendment to clause 29 or clause 30 that would allow for negotiations to establish qualification criteria? Would that re-establish the balance, or would it be necessary to increase opportunities for complaints in addition to that?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: In our brief, we make recommendations with respect to staffing. It is very clear to us that when recommending changes, we must also find a way of resolving problems or having what we call a right of appeal, a right to possible recourse when we are not satisfied with the outcome. As I mentioned, there are only two avenues for recourse, and that imposes a limit.

    Moreover, as we point out in our brief, we do not have legislation that truly protects whistle-blowers. What will happen to a person who wants to advance and who at the same time wants to complain because he or she feels that the process has not been followed? So over the years, we have called for true whistle-blower legislation, but it still does not exist.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: If that is the case, how can we convince our public service that we want to renew it, that we want to improve it, that we want effective labour-management relations as it says in the preamble? In light of what you have just said, how can we make that possible?

    Bear in mind that I have been asking for whistle-blower protection provisions from the beginning. They told me no, that an integrity officer had just been appointed, that we had to wait and see, if, in seven or eight years, it would be necessary to try and amend the act again following a review, when we know full well that if this power over appointments and staffing is made highly subjective, we are going to have more and more trouble doing our work as parliamentarians, when we want to question people and obtain documents.

    But that's not all. Yesterday, the Information Commissioner told us that the situation had become so ridiculous that public servants are no longer even writing these things down, because they are afraid of access to information requests.

    So it is the law of silence, and it is no longer possible to obtain documents, because there is no longer information to provide. Moreover, they are afraid of providing evidence, given the possibility of not receiving an appointment. How can we attract people to the public service, if all the government is thinking about is putting this highly subjective “power” in the hands of managers, when the majority of people are unionized employees who work in a public service that forces them to remain silent? How can you change the culture of the public service?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: I would like to say two things about that. I think that the public service survey answers your questions very well with respect to morale, the future for young people in the public service and recruitment.

    There is another point that I would like to emphasize about staffing. Our brief contains a section about potential lay-offs. Right now, we do not know the criteria that will be used for laying off employees. We think that the unions need to be consulted and that this consultation should be mandatory.

    Moreover, the last part of our brief deals with consultation and co-development, areas where the government said that it wanted to adopt an approach that would lead to better labour-management relations. In fact, I feel that this bill does not open the door to co-development and consultation to determine how we can work together in the recognition, which we all share, that problems have existed and still do.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Is it reasonable to believe that the bill can be improved? You seem almost to be rejecting it. Is that because your principle is to ask why the Canadian Labour Code does not apply? It was up to them to consult you; it is really incredible. Why does the code apply to other employees and not to you? In addition, we do not see the recommendations from the Fryer Report reflected here. It is as if they completely ignored that study, which seems to be quite an exceptional piece of work. Can we really improve this bill? As representatives of the Public Service Alliance and the FTQ, how do you feel the bill could be made acceptable? Or should it be rejected?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: I could suggest that—and I think that the FTQ or the CLC might like to add something— beginning today there should be direct contact with the unions to find out what amendments are needed to the bill, so that we can work together to correct the problems, recognizing, as I mentioned and you said, that the Canada Labour Code—

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You and I are both aware that clause-by-clause study of the bill is scheduled for next week. It is hard to imagine when they intend to consult you! I do not know whether you feel that your rights have been interfered with, but if I were in your shoes, I think that I would certainly feel that way.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): I'd rather move on now to the NDP, to Mr. Proctor, and we can follow that.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks very much for your interesting presentation.

    I probably should know this, but since I'm pinch-hitting for a colleague, I don't. What did the Fryer report recommend with regard to existing labour legislation being replaced by the Canada Labour Code? Did he pronounce on that?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes, they did. They didn't recommend at this point going with the Canada Labour Code, even if they recognized there were things in there that could help, but at the same time, they took part of Canada Labour Code.

    I'm just trying to remember, and maybe I need help, but I think essential services were part of that. The two-tier was part of that, but there are more details about the two-tier bargaining now.

    Kate, do you want to add to that?

º  (1630)  

    Ms. Kate Rogers (Coordinator, Collective Bargaining Branch, Public Service Alliance of Canada): Mr. Fryer recommended certain elements from the code. I think the public interest commission was an attempt at introducing the timelines for collective bargaining from the Canada Labour Code.

    The current timelines for bargaining under the Public Service Staff Relations Act are somewhat longer than they are under the code. In an attempt to shorten some of those, he eliminated what is now the process for, first, a mandatory conciliation officer, and then a conciliation board, and implemented the public interest commission as being a form of direct conciliation that would be somewhat faster. But in truth, he adopted very little out of the code in his recommendations.

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: I want to add that he made recommendations about binding arbitration, but at the same time, they never put in their recommendations looking at the capacity...I always say the capacity to pay, but the settlement. They never recommended that.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Is it fair to say the Public Service Alliance would have been happy if the government had come in with its proposed law, which was based much more extensively on the Fryer report than what we have before us?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: We still had concerns, but it was at least a step in the right direction. It was improving some part of it; and again, recognizing that it was not the Canada Labour Code, at least there were some changes that we could live with.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Right.

    I have a question for Monsieur Vallée and Monsieur Roy.

    I would say that Quebec, at least in the public service, probably has far and away the most advanced labour legislation in Canada. I would just like to get an impression from either one of you as to how deficient this legislation is when you look at it from your perspective as to what currently exists in the province of Quebec.

[Translation]

    Mr. René Roy: We are not here today to get in to the details of the legislation, but to say that this bill needs to be replaced by the Canada Labour Code, as we said at the beginning of our presentation. There was an agreement on the Canada Labour Code for all the other workers that we represent, especially in the private sector. That is why we did not respond to the question that you raised, Mr. Lanctôt.

    In Quebec, all workers are covered by the same law, including public sector workers, with certain restrictions for essential services. In the case of essential services, both parties are required to submit to the Essential Services Board the list of positions that are deemed essential, either by the government or the union. The board decides on the final list, and, in a labour dispute, identifies which employees or which services are essential.

    That provision aside, all the other rights apply to both public sector and private sector employees, and the approach is the same. We find it hard to understand why government employees cannot come under the Canada Labour Code, since the Government of Canada has the same right as the Quebec government, under Quebec law, to bring in legislation to end a labour dispute if it ever disagrees or feels that the public interest is threatened.

    That is our general approach to this issue.

    Mr. Émile Vallée: Basically, the philosophy of the Quebec Labour Code generally reflects that of the Canada Labour Code. Certain provisions are different, in particular the anti-scab legislation, but generally speaking, with respect to accreditation procedures, union activities, requirements, etc., the philosophy is very similar.

º  (1635)  

[English]

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: I would like to add on essential services that everybody remembers September 11. We were on the picket line, called everybody back, and stopped the strike. So we believe that our members, the government employees, are committed to their jobs, and when it's time they just go back and do their jobs.

    We don't understand why there are so many restrictions. Maybe they want to control the right to strike or control the unions altogether--that's all we can see right now--instead of really looking at what should be negotiated and what should be a fair process for negotiation where everybody is involved.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Carolyn Bennett, please.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thank you. I take it you don't like the bill. Daryl Bean, Dave Lewis, and Catherine MacLean all participated in the Fryer commission. Two and a half years later they came out with some recommendations, and it looks like you're back at the starting point as though that commission never happened, asking for what you were asking for before the Fryer commission. Is that correct?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: I would say that altogether the government went back two and a half years ago. When the Fryer commission presented their report, they referred the Fryer recommendations to the Quail committee.

    At the time the Fryer commission was working with different people from government and the unions and the academic people. So we didn't agree with everything that was in the Fryer report, but it was at least better than this one. So altogether, with respect, we are going back, and the government went back on this one.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I guess we've heard from witnesses who feel there has been a lot of negotiation and this bill represents a compromise. I don't see that your position has come with any compromise. After two and a half years of work, you're not even agreeing to anything that was in the Fryer commission. You're just saying you want the Canada Labour Code or nothing. Is that it?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: No. That's not what we are saying. We are saying we would like the Canada Labour Code, but it doesn't seem to be in the cards at this point. At least we are proposing amendments to this proposed legislation.

    There are two things that are really good in this one: the human rights and the capacity to study the complaints that are human rights altogether--I'm saying this in my own words--as well as the right for unions to present grievances on policy.

    At the same time, we are proposing amendments. We disagree with a few things, but at the same time we are saying you should do this and amend the legislation if it's possible.

    The other thing is the Fryer report has been picked up and received by the Quail committee, and things that were not in the Fryer report are here. The merit principle was not in the Fryer report. Essential services were not there, or what is under the “communization” of the labour practice. That was not part of the Fryer report. So they are all new elements that are here today, and that's why I said we cannot agree with it.

    Mr. Émile Vallée: The Fryer report recommends that the PSSRA's exclusion policy be changed to mirror that of the Canada Labour Code. They recommend that the terms of the positions that are deemed essential be changed to mirror those of the Canada Labour Code. They recommend that the revised Public Service Staff Relations Act be administered by the Canada Labour Code, and so on. None of these things is in the proposed legislation.

º  (1640)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Mr. Yussuff, you wanted to make a contribution.

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I say this with all seriousness to the committee: labour relations between employers and unions are always a delicate matter and ought not to be treated otherwise, because it takes a tremendous amount of trust within the parties to build a relationship. If the intention is for the government to try to improve the relationship, it needs to get it right, not somewhere because it has unilateral power to make legislation. It needs to sit down with the parties and say, we want to get this right. Ultimately, I think what the government wants to do is to figure out how to modernize the public service act regarding public employees and how they ensure there is a context in which union relationships are going to continue to function.

    The long years of tradition and history are how the parties get here. I think what my colleagues in the PSAC are trying to say is that there are a number of things that need to be considered in a very serious manner if the government wants to get this right. You could do it at the end of the day with your unilateral power and change the legislation however you may choose, but believe me, if you're trying to improve relationships with the union and employees, you're going to miss the opportunity to do that, because ultimately it might poison the relationship that currently exists and make it worse, as opposed to getting better. So it's critical that the comments being made by my colleague from the PSAC, similar to us and the FTQ, need to be considered in a serious way.

    But I would also stress this point about the Canada labour relations act, that the process that led to amending the Canada Labour Code was a tripartite process, with employer, unions, and government sitting down and saying, how can we modernize this legislation in a way that reflects the way we have to go forward into the future? The parties got there through a process of sitting down and working out their differences. As to where we are today, we are nowhere close to that.

    I would strongly urge the committee to give strong consideration...if you are following that model, it would be far more advantageous, in terms of trying to make progress regarding improving the relationship between the government and employees, than doing it on a unilateral basis, not even looking at all the recommendations that were made by the Fryer report in a way that would be consistent with building harmony and cohesiveness in the workplace....

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I think this has been helpful only because, when you look at the first page of the testimony, it really just says the bill should be thrown out and replaced by the Canada Labour Code. So in terms of your comment about getting it right, I'm pleased to have the clarification, because the amendments you are proposing are at least a way of moving that way.

    The tone of the testimony is that unless you throw the bill out, there's no possibility of getting it right. Really, what you want is the Canada Labour Code.

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: It is important for those of us who've spent many years amending the Canada Labour Code--and we are still working on it. We just did part II of that code. It took over five years of consultation and negotiation among the parties to get there. That was not an easy process. The government shouldn't feel any more compelled because it has the power to write legislation and could simply impose its will on the union and its employees.

    I think the point my colleague is trying to suggest is that there is a delicate balance here. They've made a number of recommendations, some very specific recommendations on how they see the legislation can be improved. I hope they are given serious consideration in your committee deliberations in the future.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: The Canada Labour Code was designed for the private sector. Is that right?

    Do you not think there is some sort of tailoring needed for it to be for the public service?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: No, it was not strictly for the private sector. It would be wrong to suggest that.

    Mme Nycole Turmel: It is more than the private sector. As I said at the beginning, postal workers are under the code, as are airports, and there are many other examples.

    But as we said at the beginning, yes, our preferred position is the Canada Labour Code. If we cannot pass the labour code, then we make specific recommendations in our brief, as was asked by the chair and Mr. Forseth at the beginning, as to how you can amend the legislation to make sure you protect the workplace, you protect the workers in Canada, and to make sure you have the workplace and the services you want and not create an environment that is worse than what you have right now.

º  (1645)  

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Thanks very much.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): That was the initial round. We're now going to alternate between government and opposition sides, starting with Mr. Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    I have a question I would like you all to answer. You seem to have implied here that Bill C-25 is totally stacked against the employee and against the unions. The gentleman from the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Yussuff, said it's a guarantee of employer and managerial rights. Yet, when I look at this, it seems to me there are a number of things in this legislation that are also there for the benefit of the workers. I can see where you can come up with several examples where it looks as if it's stacked the other way, and I perceive that, but don't you think you have somewhat overstated it? Is this a deliberate attempt on your part to stake out your position over here so that you can try to come together? Or what's going on here?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think in coming to the committee we want to try to be of assistance to try to improve the current legislation that's being tabled for the committee to consider. In that regard, we do have a history of being involved in shaping legislation for the government workers in this country. We take it quite seriously.

    We also know from our experiences in terms of amending the Canada Labour Code, part I, and subsequently amending the Canada Labour Code, part II, the process and the care that was taken to ensure parties arrived at a conclusion that would ensure that as a country we modernize the labour relations legislation to ensure that both unions and the employer, who has to respond to all kinds of challenges from their experiences in government, who are also party to the process, would benefit from the outcome of what we were trying to do.

    We think there are some deficiencies in the current legislation as it's been tabled. We're not trying to, again, amplify it to the point of saying there's nothing good in the legislation. We think it can be improved and we think the committee should in all instances ensure that the changes are made, because what you're trying to create, or at least the perception of what you're trying to create, is a modernized public relations act to give public sector workers a sense that they have an opportunity to advance and to participate in the workplace and of course ultimately deliver the services we Canadians expect. In doing so, we want to ensure that you don't poison the relationship that currently exists with the unions and the government as the employer and don't tilt the balance of power, such that managerial individuals may believe at the end of the day they have unilateral power under this act that does not, in our opinion, lead to the kind of workplace you're trying to create.

    Mr. Ken Epp: All right. Now, Mr. Roy, you said basically the same thing. You said the government is keeping all its rights to itself. You said that with this legislation the public service has fewer rights than other workers. Again, do you see any good in this legislation, or should it just be scrapped? What's your view on that?

[Translation]

    Mr. René Roy: We do not see very much good in this legislation. We feel that it tends to restrict rights that should be in public service collective agreements. The purpose of the bill is strictly to restrict employee rights and give the employer more rights. All other workers in Canada are governed by a code, either the Canada Labour Code or a provincial labour code. The rest of their rights are contained in a collective agreement, and the content of this legislation before us should really be negotiated between the employer, which is the Government of Canada, and its employees.

[English]

    Mr. Ken Epp: Ms. Turmel, do you have anything to add?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: I would like to say there are a lot of good things in this legislation, but I cannot say it. I will refer you to our brief again, on page 3, where we talk about proposed section 53, “Advisory Board”, where we look at compensation analysis and research. It will be restored to the function where they were cut in 1993, I believe, or in 1994. That board won't be comprised of any union or labour representatives as it is.

    A thing as simple as that--a board that doesn't recognize the right of unions to participate in an activity like that--shows you what the rest of the bill is about. As I said, when you come to collective bargaining, to staffing, to recourse, to arbitration, it's even worse. I am sorry to say that. I would have liked to have seen something that would help the workers, our members, and be able to work together with the government with a better labour-management relationship.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

    I would like to say, in defence of one of our workers--I don't know whether or not he's unionized, but this gentleman under the clock is paid good wages to turn your mikes on and off, so you can just leave them. He will do that automatically for you.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Go ahead, Mr. Yussuff.

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Mr. Epp, one thing I would like to stress is, if it continues, I think all three of us are synonymous in our submissions that there are aspects of the Canada Labour Relations Code that should apply to replace certain sections of this bill. What I've not heard from the committee is why that is not appropriate and why you feel so strongly about this.

    Again, as trade unionists, we do think that is something in this country that actually works, and works relatively well. So my point to you--and hopefully you will engage your colleagues in these deliberations when you meet in private--is why can't sections of the Canada Labour Code apply in specific areas of this legislation that has been tabled before your committee?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Thank you very much.

    We'll go to Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank all the witnesses for appearing here before the committee today to provide us with their input into the legislation that's before us.

    The issue I'd like to touch on is term employees. While they have a place--certainly, that designation has a place--when that gets extended over a period of time, there really should be a further commitment made to that employee in fairness to the employee, and in the long run, in fairness to the employer and to the people who are to be serviced. After all, when somebody, after a certain point, feels they are now part of the team, I can't help but think they're going to have even more of a commitment because they know there's a tomorrow.

    I understand there was a recent joint study on term employment by the Public Service Alliance for your group, Ms. Turmel, and the Treasury Board Secretariat. Would you agree that the bill, as it sits, supports the spirit and intent of the recommendations of that study?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: The proposed legislation recognizes the policy that will be developed or presented or adopted by Treasury Board. It is there somewhere--and I cannot remember where--but that's positive.

    But I would like to go back to the term employees. When you say it was a joint study, yes, that's one part we negotiated with Treasury Board on having term employees. We considered it a problem--it's still a problem--when you have 18% to 20% of government employees who are term coming in and out, having to compete every time their contract is renewed, and not knowing, in their economy and their life, what will happen tomorrow. That's one thing.

    So we negotiated with the government. We had a term study, and again, when we got the results we recognized a step forward. We recognized the openness to try to resolve the problem. There are still some problems, because we wanted two years for sure. It's three years.

    What we have problems with right now is that departments have the right to withdraw from the policy if they believe it could go against their purpose or could result in lay-offs of other employees. We hope to resolve those matters, but we thought it was a step forward and we wanted to recognize that.

    Again, in the private sector it's not the same. In the private sector, at least the seniority is recognized when you lay off people, but in the federal sector it's not recognized.

    The other thing that is in the policy, or will be in the legislation--I'm not sure which one at this point--is that they will compete once for the position. I think that's positive, because at present they might have to compete every six months or every year. At least this is a positive step, and I want to recognize that.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Very good. Thank you.

    I have one more question. It's with regard to learning. When this bill is implemented, there would definitely be a training phase. There would be, I would imagine, a need to train managers, employees, and employee representatives on this whole new regime, including such things as new staffing, the recourse system, and informal conflict management system.

    I understand that PSAC is working with Treasury Board Secretariat on a joint learning project. Could I have your comments on that?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: There are two things in this part.

    Again, there are the training programs that we negotiated with the employer. There's a $7-million budget for that, which will expire some time in the next month, that we want to renew during the next round of negotiations. We worked hard to develop that program. It has been difficult for many reasons, for instance, the resistance of some managers to being involved in this training program.

    If you go to the implementation of this legislation, what was in the budget is $238 million for the implementation of the budget. But I understood that all of the training would be done by departments, with the money of departments.

    So I have serious questions about how they will be able to achieve that, knowing that it has been a problem in the past to get people on training and to make sure they receive the proper training for the new responsibilities they will have.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): We'll go over to Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Despite what I have been saying since the beginning, which is that we needed to be very specific, I had no other choice today but to take a very general approach myself.

    As you know, this is not a draft bill that we are studying, we are getting ready for clause-by-clause consideration. I am shocked to hear you say that you were not even consulted during the drafting of this legislation, given that it has been in the works for years, from what I am told. You are the expert here, not us. We need to find some way of improving this bill fast by proposing specific amendments, unless it is scrapped, but I do not have the impression that that will happen.

    We will do all we can as committee members, but I have one major fear: do your members, who are public service employees, know that this bill is here in committee and that we are going to be considering it and proposing amendments? If I decide that I am against this bill and that the only amendment I want is to have the Canada Labour Code apply, you can be sure that there will very soon be a lot more people on the other side, and we will get... I will not say the word.

    That is the problem. We are very far along on the process. This committee would have to roll up its sleeve, having heard the comments that you have made today, and decide that this bill does not need to be thrown in the garbage tomorrow morning, but that it needs to be reworked and that we need to be consulted on how it can improve. That seems to me the best way to go. I hope that the committee will take that approach, but I cannot guarantee you that it will. That is not the way things work here in Parliament. On a number of bills—such as the young offenders legislation— we came with unanimous positions and we got... People that I had never seen came to vote at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Yet we had worked on these issues and we were almost unanimous. Everybody told us not to touch the bill, that we must not amend the bill. But they amended the bill. They changed it completely.

    There are very few of you who have come to talk to us the way you have today, and that is my comment. I would appeal to all my colleagues around the table: we need to stop saying that we are going to do clause-by-clause consideration next week if improvements still need to be made.

    Let us forget all those wonderful things that we heard from Treasury Board officials about how you have been consulted, how hard they are working and how great everything is. You are telling us that you have not been consulted. The bill was written by legislative drafters, of course. But you have major things to propose, and if we do not make these amendments to the bill, I feel that the public service employees should discuss these things, or demonstrate, or do something, and come before the committee. What you are telling us is very serious.

»  (1700)  

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: Thank you. I would like to add that it is for this reason that we wanted our brief to be specific. That is why you have 36 pages of noted problems and recommendations.

    I would also like you to remember the explanation that I provided to you with respect to the progress we achieved during the last round of negotiations with Treasury Board in the area of training provided within the public service, particularly for term employees, because both parties acknowledged that we had a problem. I had also mentioned that, on September 11, when it was time to take action, the unions were there. That's what I meant in terms of the recommendations. I understand that you have a limited amount of time, and that is why we are trying to be as clear as possible.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

    We'll now go to Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Lanctôt I think properly covered the issue of consultation. There are many players in this, but I do sincerely believe that you want to see improvements made in the environment in which our public service operates. I think there's good faith there and it's a matter of how to get it to there.

    The Public Service Commission is quite a unique body in that it has an agency role, ostensibly, which is more a management role as opposed to an operational role. In the bill and some of the recommendations, what comes in is this aspect of the audit rights of the Public Service Commission. I wonder if that operational activity within the PSC caused any of you some concern.

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: What we recommend you can find on pages 23, 24, and 25. We recommend a different role for the commission, to make sure they can conduct audits, for example, on any matter within their jurisdiction and may order the deputy to take any corrective action the commission considers to be in the best interests of the public service. I will refer you to our brief on this--

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Fair enough.

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: --and that will help you, because we believe the role of the Public Service Commission is not strong enough.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I will attempt to read the 30-some-odd pages.

    Let me move on to another point. The issue of the culture within the public service has been discussed broadly by many groups. I think it has been characterized as being very deeply embedded, and this bill, and I think the efforts all of you have been making, is trying to shift that culture in a way that would provide for a better environment for all concerned.

    One of the examples of the depth of that culture's embeddedness is the reliance on temporary or contract persons, rather than on full-time persons, which the Auditor General raised. This is the issue that a very substantial amount of the hires were done through contract because you could get a real person in the chair much quicker. It was 80% to 90% of hires.

    Do you consider that to be an indication of the depth of the cultural commitment, as it were, of the public service that's there? Do you have any concerns that the public service would be able to respond to the challenge the bill raises and that you raise through your recommendations? Is the public service receptive, as a body, as a whole, to renewal?

»  (1705)  

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: I will say that when you talk about culture, the culture has to be changed from the top to the bottom and the bottom to the top. That would be my first reaction to your question.

    Yes, we recognize, and I said it earlier, that there are problems with staffing, there are problems with recourse, and there are problems also with the way we conduct collective bargaining. As an example, you have to wait till the end of the contract to serve notice. It is a problem for us. Why can we not start earlier on collective bargaining and negotiation?

    If you want to change the culture, you have to train people, you have to be proud of what you are doing, and you have to work towards that. I don't believe contracting was a way to go around the system. I believe contracting happened a lot more after the downsizing. That was a way to bring back people. It was not because of the staffing problems; it was because of government, the way they wanted to be seen. That's my belief.

    I also met with a few MPs about what the public sector should be and how the government should present the public sector as a service to Canadians, as a group of people who are not in conflict of interest who can do a good job, instead of mocking, or just saying it's too big, or we don't do things right. I think we should do that.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I have one last question, to which you may all want to respond.

    Consultation obviously has to have gone on over all these years with all the vested interests involved at a variety of levels. With regard to your own organizations, can you advise us what consultations you specifically had with your membership on this bill in order to come forward with your presentation today?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: Our position on the bill was on our website. I have been nearly everywhere in Canada in the last month talking to our members. We had a press release on what was happening, and all our regional offices in PSAC were involved in trying to explain to the membership what was happening.

    Because of the short time we had, we didn't have a big consultation, but at the same time, yes, we reached out to our membership.

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to an earlier point you raised about the culture of workers and being able to respond to an improvement in the context of their working relationship with their employer.

    The culture, or cynicism, of workers is shaped by their experience with their employer. To a large extent I think politicians have a lot to do with the cynicism that exists sometimes among workers, because certain groups get elected, they think the public service should be downsized, and people of course become insecure and have to deal with that reality.

    I think the vast majority of people want to do a good job in regard to the service they provide to Canadians, and most of us who receive that service are quite pleased with the fact that there are people who want to do that. But in the context of doing it, there need to be some assurances. As for anybody else, there needs to be some consistency in how one will be treated, some transparency about how one will be treated. There needs to be a general sense of respect for the people who perform the service. Quite often there's a lot of contempt for the workers who provide the service in government, and it starts with the people who are elected to public office to guard that trust. It is your job to advocate what you think is wrong and how it could be changed.

    I think it is fair to say that if the government is seriously concerned with wanting to improve the culture of workers, and of course with their desire for change, then, most of all, people have to be assured that they are hired in a context that their job is not going to be dependent from month to month and from week to week.... They need to have some security that they are there on a permanent basis and that they will get the same benefits and of course protection as do other people.

    So I think it is important to recognize that that's shaped to a large extent by the perception of what the workers are doing on a regular basis, and more importantly, how is it supported? And of course the managers on the front line have a tremendous role to play in fostering and building that culture. If they're not leading and advocating for change, and building an inclusive involvement of workers and their unions, I think you will continue to see a resistance, because people are cynical. They've heard of good measures before and seen them come and go.

»  (1710)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Thank you very much. We're going to have to move on to Mr. Proctor.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Ms. Turmel, you said in answer to a question a few minutes ago that the picture has to change from the bottom to the top and from the top to the bottom, and then you talked a little bit about a change in culture from the bottom. What about at the top? What are the changes you think would need to be made to have a better relationship between public employees and their managers?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: I do agree that you have to show by example, and that's my belief on this.

    Every time there's a bonus, for example, for the higher levels of the organization, and everyone is getting it, I don't think that shows an example. We don't believe in bonuses, but on top of that, when everybody is getting it.... That's one thing.

    The other thing is that the resistance to change is coming from the top most of the time. The culture is there. The fear of consulting, working, and sitting down at the table to try to resolve matters I believe is there. Unless we are ready to say, let's sit together and try to resolve that, and not wait for us to react.... That's why I used the example of collective bargaining for terms, as well as the training. I think that's a proactive way to resolve problems. When you present legislation that will force us to react, I don't think that will change the culture of the government.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay. To be a little more specific, there's a fair amount of your paper here that deals with deployment. The paper is making the point that there's significant rollback in this area. I wonder if you could just take me through that part of it and some of the specifics you're concerned about.

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: On page 31 there is the recommendation on deployment. We believe there should be an opening for every employee in the federal public service to have the right to look for jobs. That's really specific to that. I will ask Jacquie to develop this a little bit more. I think that would be easier. This one is really technical.

    Ms. Jacquie de Aguayo (Legal Officer, Collective Bargaining Branch, Public Service Alliance of Canada): Thank you.

    If I can just deal with the rollback first, under the current process for deployments, an individual employee can first bring an issue about challenging a deployment at the departmental level. If they're dissatisfied with the response at the departmental level, there is a recourse right to the Public Service Commission now under the Public Service Employment Act where the individual can assert either that the deployment itself was contrary to the act, which means the notice requirements weren't complied with and various other statutory and regulatory requirements, or that the deployment itself constituted an abuse of authority, which includes concepts like favouritism, etc.

    What this new bill does is it removes that right of recourse from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission and now says to an employee, if a deployment occurs, you can grieve it up to the final level. Understand that's the grievance process that goes only to the deputy head of the department; it's an internal recourse process.

    There is no access to third-party review for deployments now, unless the employee is asserting that the deployment was made without their consent. The whole concept of abuse of authority, the ability to challenge deployments made on the basis of an abuse of authority, has been taken out of this bill. This is why we say throughout our brief that we see that there are serious rollbacks from rights that employees have in the public service now. Deployments are a perfect example.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Just to conclude then, you have a couple of specific recommendations here that would address this, if we could make sure we get them included.

    Ms. Jacquie de Aguayo: The recommendation in short is that individuals ought to be able to refer deployment complaints to adjudication on the same bases that existed before.

»  (1715)  

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): All right. We'll go back to Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to get back to the issue of consultation because I think we need to be very clear here this afternoon. I was a former chairman of a planning committee, which dealt with, of course, a lot of rezoning issues in my municipality. Even when I felt that the law did not prescribe that we hold a public meeting, we would offer it anyway because we wanted to have input from people into exactly what the city, or the developer, was proposing to do.

    I am fairly new on this committee and recently appointed as parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Board. During my initial briefings, one thing that was clear is that this bill is as a result of an extensive consultation that took place across this country for I don't know how many months, and that there was a task force actually struck to deal with this, headed by Mr. Quayle.

    I would think that those people who participated in the task force and those people who made input into the task force, who gave testimony across this country, all did it for one reason: to improve the public service, because there were apparently problems with the status quo. We certainly heard that from witnesses who have appeared here before yourselves today. I say that especially with respect to the fact that PSAC represents the largest group here in this country.

    I'm just concerned that we're going to leave here this afternoon with somewhat of an impression that there was not an extensive consultative process that went into putting this bill together, or even that, yes, there was a consultative process, but this bill does not reflect what was part of that input and really has less of the goods in it.

    I'm just wondering if you would comment on that. Have you met with the President of the Treasury Board? Again, it was to my understanding in briefings that she did make herself available, and certainly Mr. Quayle as well.

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: I think there is a difference between the words “information” and “consultation”. We received information sessions at different times, but these clearly were not consultations to get direction from the unions. This is probably why you have found that different unions have the same or similar positions on the new legislation.

    Yes, there was a tour by a group who went to various places in Canada, but the unions were not involved in it. Is it the result of the tour? I cannot answer that; we didn't see a report of the tour.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Just so it's clear to me, when the task force went across this country, were the unions not invited or did they not make submissions? Could you clarify this?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: If they were at the consultations, they were there as employees and not specially as representatives of the unions. They were not invited officially as representatives of labour. This is the way it worked, and it was the same at the national level. That's why I said there's a difference between information and consultation.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Thank you.

    We'll go to Mr. Epp, if he has a question.

    Mr. Ken Epp: I do have another question.

    There's so much talk here about you people being involved in the development of this legislation. I concur with you that if you want to have a good working relationship with the employees of the government, then there should be a lot of co-development. This particular bill talks about co-development of policies and of certain rules of engagement—if you want to call them that.

    Have you studied them, and are they adequate? What's your response to what's included in Bill C-25 on co-development?

»  (1720)  

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: Would you repeat the beginning of your question? I'm sorry, I missed one part.

    Mr. Ken Epp: My preamble was that I certainly agree that we should work together as employer, employee, supervisors, and people on staff, etc. This particular bill has a clause on co-development. I'm just wondering whether you have studied it and whether or not it is adequate.

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: We commented on that on page 12, paragraph 12, of our brief:

We believe that a new section should be added...which requires the consultation committees to establish agendas on an annual basis and to meet and consult in good faith, making every reasonable effort to reach agreement.

    Mr. Ken Epp: The bill addresses that question, but you're saying that's inadequate.

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: In the legislation, I believe there is nothing requiring us to meet.

    We talk about consultation. We believe that if you want to have a real understanding of what consultation on a direction means, then we should be able to establish agendas and to meet regularly. It should be in the legislation.

    Mr. Ken Epp: The bill refers to co-development on page 8 in clause 8. It says:

    

Each deputy head must, in consultation with the bargaining agents representing employees in the portion of the federal public administration for which he or she is deputy head, establish a consultation committee consisting of representatives of the deputy head and the bargaining agents for the purpose of exchanging information and obtaining views and advice on issues relating to the workplace that effect those employees.

    It goes on to say in clause 10 that:

The employer and the bargaining agent, or a deputy head and a bargaining agent, may engage in co-development of workplace improvements.

    It says “may”, which in my view means that either of you, or either party, could initiate a co-development initiative or exercise where you talk about things. Yet you're saying that's not good enough.

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: I understand where you are coming from, but I think what is missing is good faith. If we have an impasse, where do we go? If there's an impasse, we should have the right to go to another level or to a third party, to be able to resolve the matter. As it is not there now, the employer can say that we agree to disagree, which is the end of the consultation.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Of course, in this particular case, there is a commission that you go to. It would be between the employer and the bargaining agent, the deputy head. If there's a disagreement, it seems to me that it could go to the commission. The way I read this legislation, it can go to the tribunal subsequent to this.

    I agree with you in one area, that the people ought to have input into the tribunal and the naming of people on that tribunal. You should be able to appoint someone, then they appoint someone. Maybe there's a mutually agreeable third one, who is the independent chair of the tribunal, and so on. Then you can hear these issues in a fair and reasonable way. These facilities are available when there are disagreements.

    Is it your understanding that the only time the tribunal would come into play is if there's actually a disagreement on bargaining or on implementation of an existing collective agreement?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Is your answer affirmative?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): We'll just go quickly to one very brief question from Mr. Lanctôt, and to one from Mr. Proctor, if he has one.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I will not make any lengthy comments. I believe that people know what I think about this.

    However, I would like to hear your comments on two things. I read your brief quickly and I do not see any additions or clarifications with respect to the issue of whistle-blower protection. You have not touched on this issue in your brief, I believe. I would like you to comment on this fact.

    Furthermore, your brief makes no mention about the findings of the December survey, which revealed that one out of five public servants are subjected to psychological or some other form of harassment. Are these issues that should be added to the bill?

»  (1725)  

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: The Public Service Alliance of Canada has been very clear about the fact that whistle-blower protection should not be contained in a policy but rather in legislation. We have already made presentations on that issue, and the only place where it is talked about is with respect to the recourse available in staffing processes. Without whistle-blower legislation, it will be difficult for workers to raise the alarm about certain things because doing so may have a direct impact on their advancement in the public service. It is true that we have not dealt with that issue, but it is because we had already done so earlier. Our position on the matter has been very clear.

    Regarding the survey finding that one out of every five employees feels that he or she has been the victim of harassment, we have worked openly with Treasury Board and the departments involved to provide workplace training about harassment in order to try to improve the workplace. We and the employer agreed, I believe, that this was a joint problem and that we had to work together to resolve it. A large part of the $7 million earmarked for training will go to that.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Very well, but other witnesses, including the CSN, have asked for this issue to be clarified in the bill. They wanted not just policies or administrative measures, but clear provisions in the act—such as in Quebec's legislation— where measures against psychological and other types of harassment are included in the Labour Standards Act, I believe. The FTQ may wish to correct me, but I know that such provisions already exist in legislation. So people are asking for the matter to be specifically addressed in the bill and not just dealt with in a policy. What do you think?

    Ms. Nycole Turmel: Yes, but we would also want to be able to negotiate that and to go to arbitration in these situations. So if you want to recommend that it be included, we will certainly support that amendment.

    M. Robert Lanctôt: Fine. Thank you.

    Mr. Émile Vallée: It is in the Labour Standards Act.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That is right. I wanted some clarification. Would it be a good idea to put this in the enabling legislation, and then to specify that more can be negotiated and included in collective agreements? Should it be set out in a preamble, done through the collective agreement process or put in the enabling legislation? That is my question.

    Mr. Émile Vallée: In Quebec, the harassment provision is in the Labour Standards Act, which applies to all employees in every sector, whether they are unionized or not. Everyone is covered.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: So what do you think? Would it be good to include this in the bill?

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Mr. Yussuff, could you please respond?

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: What is your opinion?

    Mr. Émile Vallée: It could be included.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It could be or it should be?

    Mr. Émile Vallée: In that case, it should also be in the legislation covering employees under federal jurisdiction, and not only that covering public service employees.

[English]

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think in the context of harassment it should be absolutely unequivocal that employees should be guaranteed the right to work in a harassment-free environment. It should be stated quite clearly, because the biggest problem we see in regard to mental health and physical well-being in the workplace is quite often that they suffer from harassment but do not have a proper forum to have it resolved. I think it's critical to have it in the legislation.

    In the Ontario act it specifically says that the Human Rights Code is deemed to be included in the collective agreement whether the parties agree or not. In the federal code there is provision for harassment to give employees some protection.

    On one point I also want to concur with Nycole. I think the whistle-blowing protection should be in a separate piece of legislation for all public sector workers in this country. It shouldn't necessarily have to be here; it should be there as a guarantee, as a right. People should be able to speak freely of what they see wrong with the system without having to suffer repercussions.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Paul Forseth): Thank you.

    With that, the committee hearing today has run out of time, and we want to thank you for your participation.

    It's looks as if we're going to be adjourned until tomorrow at 3:30.

    Thank you very much, and we are adjourned.