CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 30, 1998

• 0917

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Mesdames et messieurs, if you will allow me to usurp the position of the chair until he gets here, we will proceed. We have enough of a quorum to hear witnesses in the continuing hearings on Bill C-29.

We have appearing before us this morning representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada—and Mr. Hindle, thank you very much for appearing. If you would be kind enough to introduce us to the people with you, we'll then proceed with your presentation, and you know the routine after that.

Mr. Steve Hindle (President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by correcting a misinterpretation. Mr. Doug Chalk is from the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I am the president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'm sorry, sir.

Mr. Steve Hindle: That's okay. The two are quite often confused.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, no, I shouldn't have confused you. It was right here, and you're right. My apologies to you, sir.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Thank you. Everybody else is confused.

With me is Sally Diehl, who is a research officer with the institute, and Mr. Denis McCarthy, who is the chair of the institute's Parks Canada response team. They'll be available for questions as well, if necessary.

The Professional Institute, commonly called PIPS, is the largest union representing professionals working in the Public Service of Canada, including some 400 biologists, historical researchers, computer systems administrators, and other specialists who work for Parks Canada.

Our brief—and I'm going to try to be quick on this—is essentially in two parts: the ASD concept and the new agency; and the second part, concerns about the employees' rights and labour relations in the new agency.

We have followed the development of the alternative service delivery concept since it was announced in the 1996 budget, and we have some concerns that we'll be bringing up today. We will not get into all of our policy statement, which we have included for your perusal, and if you have any questions we can answer those.

Our basic concern is whether or not alternative service delivery solutions are the best answer to problems in some specific areas of government.

The new Canadian Parks Agency, among its other obligations, must protect significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage in national parks, national historic sites, and marine conservation areas; must present that heritage through interpretive and educational programs for the public; and must maintain ecological and commemorative integrity as a prerequisite of the use of national parks and national historic sites.

We are told in the briefing notes that accompanied this bill that:

As part of government savings, the Parks Canada Program will receive approximately $104 million less in its annual appropriations.

Yet it will still continue to meet program objectives. We are also told that the authorities provided in this legislation “are designed to assist the Agency in meeting” those objectives.

The rationale is that the agency will have greater flexibility in managing its revenues, its contract arrangements, and its capital holdings. Moreover, it will have full responsibility for collective bargaining and for the establishment of other human resources management.

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I apologize. I was at another committee and I clean forgot my time in life. Please proceed.

Mr. Steve Hindle: These things do happen.

The Chairman: Sorry. Carry on.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to collective bargaining, however, clause 15 of the bill requires that collective bargaining be “in accordance with the negotiating mandate approved by the President of the Treasury Board”.

The initial rationale for this undertaking is that $104 million has been cut from annual appropriations, which has resulted in a need for more efficient operations. We submit that much of those cuts—cuts in personnel—have already taken place, and that delivery of service will be adversely affected no matter how the structure of the organization comes into being. Where is the business plan that justifies such a radical alteration?

The structure outlined in Bill C-29 leaves many questions unanswered. The government has concluded that the most efficient way to manage our parks and other national treasures is through a new agency established under the banner of alternative service delivery. It is difficult to discern, though, how effective the new agency will be and to whom it will be accountable.

The proposed legislation first designates a minister who will be accountable to Parliament for the new agency and its direction. The bill allows the minister to delegate any power except that of making regulations, but is silent as to how this will work in practice. There is to be an advisory board of stakeholders to advise the minister when he or she wants advice, but no provision is made for a board of directors to oversee the agency's operations or strategies. It is significant to note that employees are not mentioned as potential stakeholders.

• 0920

Clause 16 makes the chief executive officer responsible for establishing a charter for the agency that sets out the values and principles governing the provision of services by the agency to the public and the management of the human resources of the agency. This charter will be made public.

For the past several months a joint union-management working group has been developing a human resources code of ethics for the new agency. We believe that this will be incorporated into the charter. However, what is to prevent the CEO or his or her predecessors from unilaterally changing this code or the charter? Where is the assurance that consultation with the employees will continue to take place?

The chief executive officer must at least every five years have an external body prepare a report on the consistency of its human resources regime, with the values and principles that are to govern the management of its human resources. That's in clause 35. Other than this legislative five-year review, who will enforce the charter?

We believe that five years is too long a period for a review to take place. There should be some mechanism established for more frequent reporting, such as the biannual reports to Parliament on the state of the parks in clause 31 or the annual submissions of the corporate plan in clause 33.

The agency may enter into contracts that acquire and sell property and it may do anything that is necessary or incidental to the furtherance of the purposes of the agency. The minister may delegate to the agency the authority to set fees, subject to Treasury Board guidelines. This further blurs the lines of accountability.

Under clause 13 the CEO has exclusive authority to supervise and direct its work and its staff. This officer also has the power to appoint employees of the agency, an issue to which we will return later.

It seems that the new agency will be part of government when it suits the minister or when there are questions in the House. At other times it will be independently run by a CEO, subject only to occasional input from an advisory board and to periodic financial review by the Auditor General. The responsible minister's powers to direct the agency seem to conflict with the authority of the CEO.

It seems that budgetary control will stay with Treasury Board, and fee setting will depend on the minister because it involves regulations. Moreover, as per clause 15, the chief executive officer may enter into collective agreements with bargaining agents as long as this is in accordance with the negotiating mandate approved by the President of the Treasury Board.

So what's really going on here? Will the agency have any real autonomy or is its main purpose to create new avenues for contracting out and reducing staff? Are the accountability issues we have outlined here a precedent for future alternative service delivery agencies or will the government step back and clarify who will be responsible for what?

The Professional Institute accepts that there is a case to separate parks into an organization where its mandate and resources are not subsumed by the demands and direction of a larger department. We are not yet convinced that the case has been made for this new kind of hybrid agency that is half in and half out of the government structure. We are concerned for our own members who, it would appear, will have the worst of both worlds when it comes to labour relations jurisdiction.

We are equally concerned about the implications for the Canadian public, whose national parks, historic monuments, and marine conservation areas will be under the guardianship of the new agency.

We ask the committee to pay particular attention to the following questions. What advantages does the proposed agency offer over Parks Canada's current management of these national resources? Under the new agency structure, who will actually be in charge? The responsible minister, the CEO, or Parliament? Will the CEO account to Parliament for the use of taxpayers' money or will it be to the minister? Will Parliament have any ability to oversee the operations of the agency? Will the agency establish its budget independently or will it be subject to review and possible roll-backs from the minister or from Treasury Board?

• 0925

The second part deals with the impact of Bill C-29 on employment rights and labour relations. People may have heard some of this before because we have raised these concerns in other areas.

At present, all the employees are considered to be employees of the Treasury Board, appointed by the Public Service Commission. Under Bill C-29 employees who are transferred to the Canadian Parks Agency or are appointed to it by the Public Service Commission will become employed by the agency itself. The institute is concerned about the labour relations impact of this.

Our submission suggests amendments that will address those concerns, while preserving the labour relations intent of the legislation, which is to create a separate employer with the authority to negotiate its own terms and conditions of employment, although subject to the approval of Treasury Board.

Without the proposed amendments, employees of the agency will be stripped of many important rights that other federal government employees currently have, and for no discernible reason. Members of the committee should be aware that the same rights are at stake, not only for the more than 4,000 federal employees who will work with the new agency, but also for many thousands more public employees.

In the 1996 budget the government announced an intention to create three new separate employers to take over not only the management of Canada's parks but also the food inspection and functions currently performed by Revenue Canada. It is estimated that these three new separate employers will together employ about 48,000 federal employees. This number is far in excess of the approximately 18,500 persons who, at the time of the budget, were employed by separate employers created by the federal government.

It now appears that all three new separate employers will be subject to the same statutory framework as applies to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canadian Parks Agency. Consideration is being given to creating yet more separate employers under the same regime.

As a separate employer the agency will be governed by the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. For unionized employees and their bargaining agents, the PSSRA creates and regulates important rights, including certification of bargaining agents, exclusions, protection of employees' rights to join and participate in unions, and various methods of resolving bargaining disputes, amongst others.

For these matters, mainstream public employees and employees of separate employers are treated identically. Unlike most legislation governing labour relations, the PSSRA, through section 7 and subsection 69(3), effectively precludes bargaining agents from bargaining about a number of important matters. These include the organization of the public service, the assignment of duties to and classifications of positions in the public service, the appointment, deployment, promotion, and demotion of employees, the performance appraisals of employees, the lay-off of employees, and the termination of employment for non-disciplinary reasons.

To compensate for the union's inability to negotiate terms of employment in those critical areas, Parliament enacted the Public Service Employment Act, which gives most federal employees rights in those areas, along with appeal mechanisms to enforce those rights. As an example, the Public Service Employment Act and the accompanying regulations create legislative rights and protections concerning appointments in accordance with merit, including appeal procedures for unsuccessful candidates—and there are others.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act also governs the right of all federal employees, be they unionized, non-unionized, or managerial, to file grievances and to have them ruled upon at adjudication. Here, employees of separate employers are treated differently. Pursuant to section 92 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, these employees may not refer to adjudication any grievance relating to a non-disciplinary suspension, demotion, or termination.

Subsection 92(4) of the PSSRA does allow the Governor in Council to issue an order overriding that exclusion, in other words, providing that employees of separate employers can refer to adjudication their grievances about non-disciplinary suspension, etc. Such an order has now been issued for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The institute strongly recommends that such an order be issued for the Canadian Parks Agency.

On the subject of the loss of rights under the Public Service Employment Act, the act applies only to those employees who are exclusively appointed by the Public Service Commission.

• 0930

Clause 13 of Bill C-29 gives the chief executive officer of the agency independent authority to appoint employees, set their terms and conditions of employment, and assign duties to them. As a result, none of the important rights and protections given to mainstream public service employees by the Public Service Employment Act will apply to employees of the agency once an initial transition period ends.

The fact that agency employees will not have exactly the same protections afforded by the PSEA is consistent with the government's intent to establish the agency as a separate employer with the authority to negotiate its own different terms and conditions of employment for its employees, as long as there is compliance with the Treasury Board mandate.

The unintended result of Bill C-29, when coupled with the effects of section 7 and subsection 69(3) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, is that at the end of the transition period, employees of the agency will lose all protections currently in the Public Service Employment Act and its accompanying regulations and policies, and their bargaining agents will be prevented from negotiating any analogous protections whatsoever in these very important areas.

Unless Bill C-29 is amended to close that gap, employees of the Canadian Parks Agency and their bargaining agents will be powerless to negotiate or require the agency to institute any rights to protect some of their most basic and important employment interests. This will arbitrarily place employees of the agency in a grossly unfair and prejudicial position compared with both mainstream federal employees and employees in the private sector. There is the danger that lack of such provisions could undermine the merit principle, which is the basis of the public service, and could lead to nepotism and patronage.

We do have some specific recommendations in the form of amendments that we would like the committee to consider.

First, consistent with Parliament's intent to give the agency the flexibility to develop and negotiate its own labour relations system, Bill C-29 should be amended to preclude the application of section 7 and subsection 69(3) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act to the agency. This would allow bargaining agents to bargain about those matters presently addressed by the Public Service Employment Act.

Second, a clause should be added to the bill to provide that notwithstanding paragraphs 92(1)(b) and (c) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, employees of the agency may refer to adjudication grievances with respect not only to disciplinary action resulting in a financial penalty but also to termination of employment, suspension, or demotion, whether for disciplinary cause or not.

Third, failing the acceptance of the first recommendation, the agency could either be put under the statutory framework of the Canada Labour Code or kept under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the PSEA in order to maintain access to the Public Service Commission as an impartial arbiter for appeals.

The briefing notes that accompanied the bill indicated that the agency chose to remain under the PSSRA rather than the Canada Labour Code because the Canada Labour Code applies to organizations that are commercially oriented. This is clearly not the case for the national museums, which are under the code and which provide a service to Canadians similar to that of Parks Canada, nor are they commercially oriented. In effect, the Canadian Parks Agency will become a land management organization that must commercialize portions of its operations because there is no guaranteed funding for expansion.

In fact the institute represents employees in other not-for-profit organizations, such as Weeneebayko General Hospital and Fort Qu'Appelle Indian Hospital, that are covered by the code.

The Museums of Civilization, Nature, and Science and Technology, and the National Gallery were legislated as corporations in January 1990. It has been the institute's experience, and we believe that of the employers, that a positive labour relations climate has been maintained under the Canada Labour Code.

Our fourth recommendation is that clause 35 should be amended to require the chief executive officer to have a report prepared every two years on the consistency of its human resources regime with the values and principles that are to govern the management of its human resources.

Our final recommendation is that there must be some mechanism established that would enable agency employees access to transfers and competitions in the public service and allow public service employees to apply for agency positions as internal candidates. This would increase mobility and career advancement opportunities for employees and would provide the agency with a larger pool of potential candidates.

• 0935

The department's briefing notes on the legislation state that one reason for remaining under the Public Service Staff Relations Act is it would allow employees access to job opportunities in the public service. However, there is no guarantee, nor do we see the mechanism for that to happen.

If Bill C-29 is adopted without amendments to reflect the concerns we have raised, an important portion of the federal public service will lose its non-partisan character and the guarantee that hiring will comply with the merit principle. Employees will lose faith in the new organization, because they will have lost all protection in staffing matters.

We ask you, members of the committee, not to let this happen. Even at this late date, you have the power to make the modest changes that are needed in order to respond to our concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Hindle, for the very important points you've brought before us.

I would like to turn the floor over to Mr. Doug Chalk, president of the National Component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Mr. Chalk.

Mr. Doug Chalk (President, National Component, Public Service Alliance of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just going to read the brief for you, and I think you already have some briefing notes from someone up here. I sent them in to you earlier.

The National Component represents approximately 3,000 employees who work for Canadian Heritage's parks program. The National Component is one of 17 components within the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which is the official bargaining agent for the majority of employees who will form part of the new Canadian Parks Agency. The Union of Canadian Transport Employees is also a component within the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and it represents several hundred employees who work on various canals within the parks program and who also will be part of the agency.

The brief we are presenting refers mainly to PSAC members, most of whom are employed within the operational category. We will refer to this category within the body of the brief, as it exemplifies where most PSAC employees in the parks program are presently classified.

Our purpose in presenting this brief is to provide qualified support for the intention of Bill C-29 to create an organization, the Canadian Parks Agency, that operates separately from other departments. Being part of larger organizations has proven detrimental for national parks and national historic sites. While we clearly have had some reservations regarding differing aspects of the bill, we hope the bill will do more good for our members and all Canadians than has been the case in the rather shifting history of parks as a program in several previous departments.

While our primary concerns as a union are directed at the well-being of our membership, we are also extremely aware and conscious of the importance of the parks program to all Canadians and indeed the world at large. Suffice it to say that all peoples throughout the world, regardless of location, should have an interest in all parks. In Canada, national parks and national historic sites also form part of our overall interest and concern as a union and respond to what we believe are major concerns to all Canadians.

We welcome the invitation to speak to the committee and relay to you our interest in Bill C-29.

The National Component has represented members employed by Parks Canada—the name most common to members and the general public—including national historic sites, while the parks program was part of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the 1970s. We represented members employed in Parks while it was part of the Department of the Environment. We now represent members employed within National Parks and Historic Sites as part of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Clearly the parks program is one of the few programs that has never been in the position to say, “This is where we belong”. Without dwelling on the many and varied reasons for moving the program as often as it has been, the effect was that the program suffered not only from identity but from a reality perspective by the government of the day and all political parties. Whenever there was a reference to parks, there was always someone else or many others who spoke to questions relating to our parks. Likewise, when policies were developed in other parts of whatever department claimed parks, these policies were added to parks whether they fitted or not.

Now, hopefully, we have a piece of legislation that will direct its contents to the operations and needs of Canada's national parks and historic sites.

• 0940

Before Bill C-29 was introduced a number of weeks ago, the National Component had to deal with Parks being located in the Department of Canadian Heritage.

For a few short years employees of the parks program and their union had to watch as Parks was somehow being shifted around within Canadian Heritage to try to see where it might do the best for the department, while avoiding the real concern of what would be best for Parks.

Finally, last year a major problem arose. Parks had decided to follow the lead of Treasury Board and introduce alternate service delivery through employee takeovers in the parks program.

No less than 78 proposals for an ETO were submitted to the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Tom Lee. The impact of the ETOs would have meant a possible job loss of 2,000 or more parks employees and a very real possibility of privatization of any and all activities within certain national parks and national historic sites.

Our opinion of what was happening was very quickly known to the senior officers of government, the Department of Canadian Heritage, and many others. What was happening was simply not acceptable under any format.

Canada has a responsibility to ensure that our national parks and our national historic sites remain under government control and, moreover, control that is effective and known to all.

In our union, comprising the majority of parks and sites employees, we were and are of the opinion that Parks Canada is not for sale, not now or in the future.

It took much energy and much determination on the part of the union and its members to ensure that Parks would not be privatized to anyone or any commercial organization.

To their credit, the assistant deputy minister and other senior officials of Canadian Heritage and Parks reviewed our concerns and determination to stop the ETO program.

Partly because of the ETOs, consultation evolved to a greater degree because of the need for us as a union and for management to meet and examine how we could overcome the serious problem facing us. We met and we met again and again.

Finally a process to review ETO proposals was agreed to and an open and honest review of information was concluded.

The result is that of 78 proposals received and reviewed, only six were accepted by Parks Canada management. The six affected 12 of our members, a far cry from the 2,000 members who could have been affected.

Many lessons were learned during 1997 on how to consult and how to work together for the better interests of all Canadians and for the employees. The above problems and circumstances were only one effort that brought us closer in recognizing the importance of consultation between our organizations.

For three years prior to 1997 we had developed in Atlantic Canada a new and very progressive approach to consultation. The means of actually consulting were worked out in Atlantic Canada, and they produced dividends in the ETO affair.

We are building on a consultation process developed earlier, and our relationship is now one that has brought us across the country to a realization of the importance of working together. It has also brought to our attention the need for understanding the importance of our national parks and national historic sites, as well as the diversity of our country. We now, even more than in the past, appreciate the growing need for even more parks and sites for many reasons, which include culture, conservation, preservation, heritage, local economies, employment, tourism, and recreation.

Moving to an agency for employees has been a traumatic experience. It has followed on the heels of mistrust as a result of government downsizing. This has meant uncertainty, disappointment, and hurt for employees and their families. It has meant in many cases the break-up of relationships and a considerable loss of dedication.

It has also meant the loss of employees at operational and other base levels that, realistically speaking, make the national parks and historic sites function. Without these employees, there could not be a park or a site with their doors or gates open for all of us to enjoy.

Because of the years of government downsizing, it became clear to employees that about the only thing that really mattered was saving money. Efficiencies that could be found anywhere were all that counted. Maximization of all that could be achieved at the least cost was clearly the message. Compassion would have to wait for a new era.

The governments of the day have shown complete and utter disdain for their employees, their families, and Canadians. This attack on the lowest paid and most vulnerable still continues today.

We are here today because we believe that once the parks program is given its own course to set, once it becomes free from interference of others within its surroundings, once it can begin to make decisions based on the needs of parks and sites, it clearly will begin to be an agency dedicated to our national parks and national historic sites. Hopefully Canadians and its employees once more can be proud of their treasures.

• 0945

We are also convinced that proposed legislation is appropriate for what government appears to want to do: keep the parks and sites under government control and not privatize the operations of the Canadian Parks Agency.

What do employees want?

The first time the employees heard about the Canadian Parks Agency—that name—was through the legislation. The name they went under, the name they liked, the name they wanted and still want is Parks Canada Agency.

They also want an organization they can trust and work in without fear; an organization that's prepared to recognize employee contributions; an organization that respects the dignity and self-respect of its human resources complement at all levels; an organization that is prepared to negotiate all working conditions—I repeat all working conditions—with employee unions in a fair and responsible manner, realizing where employees work and what employees do; an organization that is accountable for its actions to all Canadians and to its employees; and an organization that will provide for effective, meaningful, collaborative consultation on all matters within its human resource regime.

Let us now review the next section of the actual legislation relating to human resources and determine how close it comes to what employees and their bargaining agents are looking for.

For most unions the type of legislation dealing with employees is critical. Basically there were two pieces of legislation that could have been employed relating to employees as this relates to collective bargaining and the right to be represented by a bargaining agent: the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

The Canada Labour Code would have provided a clear right to negotiate all employment conditions as if the agency were not attached to the federal government service.

The PSSRA provides to Parks as an agency under part II, schedule I many options close to the Canada Labour Code, while keeping the agency and its employees as federal public service employees.

The employees, in our opinion, wanted to stay as federal public service employees.

With respect to what can or cannot be negotiated under the two pieces of legislation, we believe we have managed to put together several creative means of achieving perhaps the same results under the PSSR Act as the Canada Labour Code, although overall we would have preferred the code.

Through the agreement of management at the highest levels we are participating as full members of a consultation process that covers the human resource areas. We have the right to negotiate, as under the Canada Labour Code, working conditions that one might find in any contract. The difference is with respect mainly to staffing and to the classification of jobs. The code provides for negotiations of staffing and classification and also provides for third-party grievances. The PSSR Act also provides for negotiations of working conditions except for staffing and classification.

Under our arrangement to consult, however, we are in fact putting together with management through a number of working groups and steering committees what will be the staffing policy for the agency. Likewise we are developing a classification standard together. We are in effect, for all intents and purposes, at the bargaining table but in a collaborative consultation form.

With respect to third-party usage in disputes, we have a commitment by management that third-party disputes will be settled through an agreed upon dispute resolution method. We are also working together to adopt alternative dispute resolution processes that hopefully will eliminate the requirement for third-party resolutions.

As an example of the above, within the agency legislation there's a requirement for a charter under section 16. Within the charter is a requirement for establishing agency values and operating principles.

We have just recently jointly concluded what has now been agreed to as the values and operating principles for the agency. These principles pertain of course to the management of the human resources of the agency. Contained within the values and operating principles will be found those matters that are very important to employees, including recognition of employee unions and participation in same, respect of employees, employment of competent people, investment in employment development, respect for and application of the principles of official languages and employment safety, protection from harassment and discrimination, respect for diversity, and ensuring staffing is free from political influence and patronage of all kinds.

In clause 13 there are several—

• 0950

The Chairman: May I interrupt you for just one second and make a suggestion. In your own interest, the value of this exchange is for members to have a chance to question you so they get a better handle on things. I look at your brief and you're reading page 10 and it goes on until page 26. I'm afraid if you read the whole thing there will be very little time for questioning by the members.

I see throughout the brief there are specific recommendations that you have inserted in bold type. Could I suggest to you perhaps that you go through the brief quickly to get through these items so we know what specific recommendations you are making and so we will have time for the members to question Mr. Hindle and yourself? In your own interest, if we don't do this perhaps the members won't appreciate all the value of what you're putting forward.

Mr. Doug Chalk: Yes, I can try to do that for you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Doug Chalk: I will turn to the bold print on page 12.

As a union we want to know the decision-maker and we also want to hold him or her directly accountable. We want to negotiate with the individual who has the full authority at the table. In the legislation we're not quite sure who has it, whether it's going to be Treasury Board or whether it's going to be the CEO. We have difficulty with that process.

Mr. Chairman, people should have a copy of the briefing notes. I sent them in earlier, so someone should have taken them for the committee. Our concerns are basically the same on most of this. If they want to ask questions, perhaps it would be better if we just do that now.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I notice the conclusions on pages 25 and 26 are particularly helpful. They summarize your case as you would wish to. I don't mean to play the editor here.

The Chairman: Perhaps you could read pages 25 and 26. At least it'll give us a summary of what you're about.

Mr. Doug Chalk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill C-29 is appropriate for the Canadian Parks Agency. It is appropriate, however, with consideration being given by the committee to the several recommendations and comments we have suggested contained in this brief. The Public Service Alliance of Canada believes in our national parks and our national historic sites.

We could have suggested several other means of directing the operations of parks and sites, such as a board of directors reporting directly to the minister. Would this board, however, be one that would provide for representation in a manner that would assist in the operations of our national parks and national historic sites or would it be such that it was a hindrance? We believe that a direct line to the CEO rather than an inaccessible board of directors is more appropriate to deal in human resource matters.

A review of the various national museums might better explain to the committee why we would welcome more the opportunity to discuss concerns, negotiate contracts, and consult with the main authority of the operation of the agency directly. The museum, with its board of directors, is inaccessible and, frankly, out of reach, which we believe is not in the employees best interests. We do not want an absent landlord to deal with; we want the landlord.

The National Component is satisfied that the main objectives of the agency—preserve and conserve—are still with the agency and now will be enshrined in legislation. The preamble to the bill clearly places before all the specific national interest of the agency. We endorse the interest as stated.

In conclusion, we would certainly have preferred the Canada Labour Code as the governing labour legislation, but we will, if this is not possible, work with the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the new consultation processes created to ensure employees are treated in a fair and equitable manner.

Only the name of the agency remains somewhat of a genuine concern to present employees. For decades employees have always told others that they work for Parks Canada. Members of the public always referred to Parks Canada. Perhaps the committee will also reflect on the importance of the name of the agency. Where in the name, for example, does “national historic sites” appear or have any references been made to them? The national historic sites are also of considerable importance to employees and to Canadians.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chalk. Thank you, again, Mr. Hindle.

I'll open the floor to questions.

Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): I have no questions at this time.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam Tremblay.

• 0955

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Good morning, sir.

When we met with government officials, our friend, Mr. Bélanger, asked many questions. In fact, we didn't know exactly how labour relations would be managed, but this is the first time in my life that I see in the same paragraph both the position of the union and a fall-back position. I am quite surprised. On page 25 of the English text—

The Chairman: Which one of the two briefs?

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: I'm talking about this one.

The Chairman: The PSAC brief.

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chalk's presentation. It is on page 25 of the English text, and page 27 of the French.

You would have preferred to come under the Canada Labour Code, but you do accept to be covered by the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Can you explain to us what is the difference between the two legislations and how it would be more beneficial if the Canada Labour Code applied to you?

[English]

Mr. Doug Chalk: The labour code puts everything on the table to negotiate: staffing, classification, things like that. The Public Service Staff Relations Act does not put that on the table. That's covered under the Public Service Employment Act, which we don't have.

What we're getting now, from my understanding of the legislation, is that the CEO may put these things on the table or he or she may keep them inside and make them policies, in which case we can consult on policies. We can say what we don't like about them, and that's it. If they're on the table for negotiation, if we don't like them, there are avenues that can be taken to try to correct the things that are going on, as you know.

That's where we would like everything, on the table to negotiate, so we can reach an agreement that we can both live with. We don't want something that's forced top down by management policies as we have in the federal government right now. The policies are made somewhere. We get a chance to consult on them, send in what we think, and generally we get back the same package we saw in the beginning without much concern to what we had said. So that's the concern.

The Chairman: Mr. Hindle, I recall in your brief that you have taken a position very clearly that you want the labour code to apply. Perhaps you could address this at this time too.

Mr. Steve Hindle: In essence, Mr. Chalk has covered most of the differences. The way we see the labour code functioning, it provides a framework within which the parties are charged with the responsibility of working out their relationship. The Public Service Staff Relations Act is very prescriptive. It tells the parties what they will do, how they will do it. It establishes an awful lot that they cannot even talk about under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

So the code to us, while it's not perfect, is a far more modern piece of labour legislation, and it does put the onus on the parties to work out the arrangements that are appropriate for them. So it's not necessary to have the same staffing arrangements with Parks Canada as it would be with the museums or for other parts of an organization under the labour code. That's the essence of the difference.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: I have also read somewhere that the CEO will have to get a mandate—he will probably get his lawyers to do it, same as everybody else—from Treasury Board before bargaining with you. So, in effect, you won't even be able to bargain directly with the real boss as you had wished. What difference will it make to you? You want to be part of the mainstream public service without having to deal with Treasury Board. That is impossible. All civil servants, whether they work for an agency, for a department or whatever, must get a Treasury Board mandate. There is an affordability test. How do you reconcile the two things?

• 1000

[English]

Mr. Steve Hindle: If I understand the question correctly, our preference would be that the Parks Agency set its own mandate and have control over its own budgeting and what's appropriate in terms of compensation for the people who work for it. We would prefer, if Parks is to be separated from government, that it be wholly separated from government and that the Treasury Board have no role to play in setting and negotiating mandate.

If we are going to sit down at the bargaining table with an employer, we would like to sit with an employer that actually has control and is able to make decisions in relation to the negotiations that are taking place. So if we're going to have to negotiate with Parks and they have to get their money from Treasury Board, we might as well be sitting at the table with Treasury Board.

We would prefer if we could sit with Parks as a real employer, and it may be possible to do that if they were under the labour code or if they stayed in the public service proper, one or the other. The proposal in Bill C-29 puts them halfway out, halfway in.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: I now want to pursue a different issue. You all know that the government is establishing this new agency because it is in its best interests, but it might be a problem for its employees. If you are separated from the public service, they will be able to bargain cut-rate conditions with you. They will bargain for less employees. They will bargain many matters that will be beneficial for the government, but much less so for you.

Very valid and very logical reasons were explained to us. We were told that establishing the agency would be beneficial for you also. In your opinion, what are the reasons for creating this agency and what are the risks for the employees? Do you have all the necessary guarantees?

[English]

Mr. Steve Hindle: We have come to realize over the last several years that there are no guarantees for public service employees, whether they're in agencies or in the public service proper. The government's downsizing program has shown that.

What we are looking for is, if the government chooses to create an agency, there should be no loss of current employment rights that employees have under the existing regime. With the proposal in Bill C-29, rights would be removed from employees when they moved to the agency. And those are essentially the rights embodied in the Public Service Employment Act.

The unusual thing about the federal public service is that there are really two pieces of legislation that govern the employee-employer relationship. One is the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the second is the Public Service Employment Act. The new agency would be under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but it would not be under the Public Service Employment Act.

What we are looking for is some recognition that people moving from the federal government to an agency as a separate employer will continue to have the statutory protections available in the Public Service Employment Act, or, notwithstanding that, that the parties—the agency and the bargaining agents—be allowed to work out the staffing regime and the classification processes. In other words, we'd be allowed to bargain those things that we cannot bargain right now under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

We do not mind dealing with a separate employer. Separate employers have advantages, not just for the government, but for the relationship between the employer and their employees. If it's done properly and with the appropriate framework, it allows for the employment regime to take into consideration those unique characteristics of that employer.

For example, Parks has a number of very remote sites that have very special needs, and there are certain conditions of employment for Parks employees that are more unusual than they are for the general federal public service. So having them as a separate employer, with a true opportunity to work out all terms and conditions, would allow the parties—the bargaining agents on behalf of the employees and the agency on behalf of the employer—to work out the details that are appropriate for the Canadian Parks Agency. That's really what we're looking for.

• 1005

The Chairman: Mr. Chalk, feel free to intervene if you desire.

Mr. Doug Chalk: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I apologize for being late. I was just told at the last minute about this meeting, and I'm afraid I haven't read your material.

I come from the maritimes, and I have been looking at alternative service delivery in a big way with regard to military workers in Nova Scotia. I have spoken with some members of your association, which is the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, regarding parks. I want to ask you about the impact ASD is having on the morale of your staff and what Parks looks like to you now. I want some impressions. I would like you to sort of tell me a story here, because sometimes the story, the narrative, gets lost in all of this. What's happening to Parks now, in your estimation? You're the ones who are closest to it and working in it.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Perhaps this is a good opportunity for Mr. McCarthy, who is actually an employee of Canadian Heritage working in Parks.

Mr. Denis McCarthy (Chair, Parks Canada Transition Team, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada): I hate to be the one to break the news, but there is no morale in Parks Canada. Over a period of a number of years, the Parks Canada agency has been moved from one department to another. Through each process, the owning department has taken a good slice of Parks Canada for its own advantage. They're feeling very demoralized and, as an organization, from the employee perspective, wasted.

From an organizational perspective, like Mr. Chalk, I sit on the consultation committee. From the discussions and intentions that we have—I'm explaining this to the Parks Canada employees—there is an intent—we see this intent in management—to try to develop a better relationship. It's a very worthwhile effort, but trust us, there's nothing there to establish or force a precedent or get us to the point of coming to an agreement.

Unfortunately, with whatever agreements we have come to at this stage of the game with regard to where we're looking at going, there's no mandate for anybody to actually agree. There's nobody in a position to be able to sign a document or present an official position. This is also demoralizing as far as the employees are concerned.

So to answer your question, there is no morale, and the employees really don't see the advantages of going in the current direction unless there's something in writing and some guarantees as to what it's going to look like later.

Mr. Doug Chalk: The way I put it is that there's basically no trust or morale. The employees don't trust anything we say as a union because we don't have the power to bring a lot of it in. They don't trust the management of Parks and they don't trust the government. It's a whole trust thing, from what we've just gone through. As for the way the employees feel about parliamentarians, they feel that you feel as if they don't count.

You could speak for every department, I think, while we're on that topic, but the type they chose was an employee takeover. I think Parks and the government chose that because it sort of tried to fool the public that it was giving these things to the government employees, who would take it over. But when you followed that through, which is what we did, these people had to resign from the government.

We asked questions when they brought it in: where would the savings be? I got no answers. So then I put a scenario on the table. I said if two people take over the contract and then they hire fifteen people and they have to maintain the land and everything else the same way and spend the money that's already dedicated for those things, the only place there can possibly be a savings is in the benefits and salaries of the employees or by having fewer employees. I asked whether that was correct. The answer I got from the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage was zero. There was no answer, nothing.

• 1010

I assumed I had the right answer, and when I went out into the field, that was exactly the right answer. These people were fighting among each other in workplaces. They got 78 proposals, because they were told in some areas that they would have no job by April 1997. They were told they would have no job and that they had better put in these proposals. So they put in proposals, naturally.

That's where we were when we started looking at this legislation and trying to bring some people who survived this episode with split families and workplaces. What happens in Ottawa is that we don't understand—you do in the regions—that when you have a fight in the workplace in a small town, that fight goes on with your family and everything else and all over forever. It's your whole day, 24 hours per day. It's not like in Ottawa, where you finish work after you work your eight hours and then you go out somewhere else and you never see this person until you go back to work. It's a totally different thing.

That's what has happened in Parks. That's exactly where we are now: trying to build things together.

They don't trust us. Both unions have their necks way out on the line here in these dealings that we're going through right now. I would suggest that if it doesn't work out in a fair fashion for the employees, then because I'm elected, I won't be there next time. I shouldn't be there, as I made a judgment. We'll see where I end up, where we end up, and where the employees end up. It's very important where they end up, more so than where I end up.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I appreciate your honesty. I want to think about what it means to Canadians to have parks and what we all know as our Canadian parks.

How are they going to look different now? I grew up going to parks throughout my childhood, and the dream of our national parks is very solid in everybody's imagination. If we have some great heritage in our imagination, than I think it's very important to sort of adjust the imaginary parks and the imaginary railways and the imaginary good old hockey teams with the reality of today.

What do the parks of today look like? What will it look like if I take my kids into Jasper National Park? How will it look different from how it looked say 20 years ago or even 10, given the situation you're talking about in terms of the people running these places?

Mr. Steve Hindle: I think actually right now, if you were to visit a park...it's probably better than it was 20 years ago. The big question is, what will it be 20 years from now?

As the representative of the employees, I can assure you that the employees—all the employees, including the managers—of the parks want to continue to conserve the heritage that's there, preserve what's there in terms of the ecological balance in the parks, continue to be able to dedicate themselves to historic sites and monuments, and keep what we have so diligently worked at building up.

In order to do that, they need some assurances that they will be respected as employees. They need some assurances that there will be a stable funding base for the Canadian Parks Agency. They need some assurances that they're not going to be shuffled around, as they have been in the past, from department to department to department.

I think it's very important that even if the agency doesn't come into being, there should be a very separate entity know as Parks Canada. It's a very important part of Canada's heritage, and all the employees want to contribute to continuing to build that heritage and ensuring it is there for future generations.

I think we have an opportunity to do that as long as we set up the Canadian Parks Agency with the proper framework and the ability for the parties who are most involved with running the parks to come to agreements and to work out what is right for their relationship.

I think it's not too late. Right now, we're in a good situation, and we have to ensure that we put in place what's required and what will be necessary to ensure that it is still in place 20 years from now and 200 years from now.

Mr. Doug Chalk: On that topic, I look after the operational people in the parks. I would say that you probably won't notice much difference this year, but there aren't enough people there.

Right now, in terms of what we've gone through, I think we got rid of around a thousand people from Parks. A lot of them were at the lower levels. That's not to say that we didn't lose any professionals, but those were the easiest ones to get rid of; we're out of the business of doing whatever we're doing.

Now I think it's going to cost them more money if they keep on this track, for the simple reason that we can repair a picnic bench with the people we have by paying them the rate we pay them rather than bringing in somebody from outside on contract to do it. I think they're going to be so short that they're going to have to either hire more seasonal people, term people, or they're going to have to do something else in there, or bring the contracts in. Hopefully, we can make arrangements so that doesn't happen.

• 1015

But I think in a year or two you'll find that the stress and pressure on these people, if this isn't addressed, will then cause a deterioration that will affect what you're going to see and the reception you'll receive in the parks and things like that.

The only thing we have going for us is that these people are dedicated to the parks. As a union representative, I keep saying that if you don't do this, maybe we can fix it. But they say they have to do this because the public is coming in and because of this and that. They just go way beyond all the expectations you would expect of an employee somewhere. They live and die for the parks. They also live right in the community, so it's their thing. They're very proud of that. That's what we have going for us.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Hindle, PIPS has made its views quite clear on the creation of an agency when dealing with Revenue Canada. I'm not sensing the same kind of opposition, if you will, to the Canadian Parks Agency from you or from the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Are we to understand that, generally speaking, before we get into any matters related to the public service, that there's a general agreement with the direction of creating such an agency for parks?

Mr. Steve Hindle: I would say that would be correct. We don't have the same opposition to this. We can see that in this one there is some sense to having a separate organization known as Parks Canada or the Canadian Parks Agency.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Does that hold for PSAC as well?

Mr. Doug Chalk: We would have preferred, as I said, for it to stay as its own department. Parks had to get out from under all these other departments because they were just getting decimated inside there. The agency is a step, but I'm not totally sure why we had to go to an agency. Even though I asked many questions, I don't have the answers.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But there's no general opposition per se.

Mr. Doug Chalk: No, we need the autonomy away from the other departments.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I can go on for a while, so stop me when you will, Mr. Chairman.

I'm one of those who I think accepts that, over the years, successive governments added more and more conditions, and perhaps restrictions or impositions, on the entire way we deal with public servants. We built some sort of a cumbersome system in some capacity. Most of the elements added to it have come from outside employer-employee relations, such as official languages, access to information, financial reporting, and so forth. It's such that we now have a rather cumbersome apparatus, and I think most people accept that.

The flip side is that we wanted this apparatus to protect certain elements of society, certain rights, and certain access to whatever. So I think we have to be very careful when we're trying to subtract ourselves from these self-imposed impositions, if you will, and move out of there about abandoning too much. I'm sympathetic to a lot of what you're saying. I want to zero in here on the employee-employer relationship, if you will. I ask these questions, and I hope we'll be getting some answers later this morning when the minister appears.

My understanding is that the Public Service Employment Act essentially doesn't apply. That's what governs the employment, the staffing function, if you will, and all related matters. Now the Public Service Staff Relations Act does apply, except that section 7 and subsection 69(3) preclude, if you will, a whole bunch of things that should be dealt with there. The proposed act also says that subsection 11(2) of the Financial Administration Act, which governs personnel management, does not apply. And somewhere in there—I haven't found it yet—we are saying that the Canada Labour Code doesn't apply.

So the question I'll put to the officials when they appear before us—I hope to get an answer—is, what does apply? Can you answer that question?

Mr. Steve Hindle: The simple answer would be that, in the area of staffing, what would apply is whatever the CEO wants to have applied. I think you have the essence of our arguments on this agency as well as on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is that there is a gap in moving to an agency under separate employer status in the way it currently operates. The gap is mainly in the area of staffing.

• 1020

The Public Service Staff Relations Act is what's precluding the parties from being able to work out for themselves what's appropriate. Losing the Public Service Employment Act but staying under the Public Service Staff Relations Act is the worst of both worlds.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So you have to have both or neither—

Mr. Steve Hindle: You have to have both or neither.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: —and then replace those with the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Or you need an exemption from portions—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is section 7 and subsection 69(3).

Mr. Steve Hindle: —of the Public Service Staff Relations Act under section 7 and subsection 69(3). Yes, you have it.

Mr. Doug Chalk: I'm not a politician in the sense that you people are.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Of course you are; you're an elected official.

Mr. Doug Chalk: Well, I am in that sense. But I said I'm not in the sense that you are by being here and under the law.

I would say that if in the legislation, instead of giving the option to the CEO to put this down and say it will be negotiated—it says these will be negotiated by the employee representatives and management—that would give us an avenue to have it on the table. This would be similar to the Canada Labour Code.

But I think it says that he may put this down or they may make their own policies. That would be taking away the rights the employees have now without any question. That's if policies come forward that we can only consult on.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm not sure I follow that, but okay.

Mr. Hindle, you also said you would like the agency to be fully autonomous. I can see some of that. Yet your fifth recommendation, if I recall, was for the creation of a mechanism that would allow for transfers between this autonomous agency and the rest of the public service.

There's merit to that. I can see why you would still want to have linkages. So you can't be fully autonomous, then. If you'll agree to that, then I'll ask the question—

Mr. Steve Hindle: The recommendation is based on the way the legislation is written and my expectation that there will be some sort of hybrid agency that's half in, half out. If it's half in, half out, then let's give people the opportunity to move from the agency to the public service proper.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So if it were fully autonomous, you wouldn't necessarily make that fifth recommendation?

Mr. Steve Hindle: That's right.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay. In that case, could you suggest a mechanism or a method whereby this could apply? How could the employees of this agency have the ability to go back to the public service and vice versa?

Mr. Steve Hindle: The simplest mechanism would be to have the Public Service Employment Act operate and to have the appointments made by the Public Service Commission of Canada, because that's what operates within the public service.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Doesn't that defeat the purpose of creating an agency?

Mr. Steve Hindle: Well, what is the purpose of creating the agency? That's the more proper question.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's to add more flexibility. Everyone is saying that.

Mr. Steve Hindle: There is an example. The National Energy Board is a separate agency under the act. So it can be done, and it has been done.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay, that's what I was looking for. The National Energy Board?

Mr. Steve Hindle: Yes, the National Energy Board.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you very much. That's it for now.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): I appreciate the briefs. I think some important points have been raised. I'd like to just highlight or pursue a couple of things.

Both Mr. Hindle and Mr. Chalk expressed concern about the possible politicization of the public service. On page 9 of Mr. Hindle's brief and on page 25 of Mr. Chalk's brief, they both speak to that concern. I'd like you to elaborate on that. What exactly do you mean?

Mr. Steve Hindle: In the simplest terms, go back to the early part of this century. I believe it was 1918 when the Civil Service Commission, as it was then known, was brought in to avoid wholesale changes to the people working in the public service when governments changed. The Civil Service Commission became the Public Service Commission.

It is the arbiter of the merit principle within the public service. It is the watchdog to ensure that patronage of any form does not creep into the staffing processes of the public service.

By moving Parks Canada out of the public service and removing the application of the Public Service Employment Act, you are removing the Public Service Commission as the watchdog on patronage and having them assure the application of the merit principle.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: So it's correct to say that you're then speaking specifically to the concern of political patronage creeping into this system under the proposed changes. Is that right?

• 1025

Mr. Steve Hindle: It goes beyond that as well. It could be favouritism within the office, which the Public Service Commission will also deal with, in terms of ensuring that staffing processes are fair. In any way, shape or form, the determining factor for promotions and competitions in the public service is merit. We would like to see that continue.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Of course. Thank you.

Mr. Chalk?

Mr. Doug Chalk: The same.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: You have exactly the same concern. Okay. I certainly think that's a valid concern, and it struck me that both of your briefs spoke to it, so I wanted to have that concern elaborated on and on the record. I appreciate your comments.

I must say, though, Mr. Chalk, that I found, on page 7, a little hyperbole in the statement that “governments of the day have shown complete and utter disdain for their employees, their families, and Canadians”. I found that rather hyperbolic in nature.

However, we'll leave that aside for now. I'd like to go on to page 9. You make an important point, but you give a caveat that I want to address. You say, “The employees in our opinion wanted to stay as Federal Public Service employees.” Am I correct in assuming that you don't have a resolution from your members saying that? What do you mean by the phrase “in our opinion”? Isn't it very definitive how they feel?

Mr. Doug Chalk: The basic agency was more or less strong on them, I thought, and so in discussions with them, like many people, they don't like change, but the advantage again in the.... The difficulty we're having now and the main reason they want to stay inside the public service is the ability to go back in if there's another downsizing wave. They can alternate back into where some 100,000-odd jobs are; the chances of alternating are there.

But in this organization they're going to miss that, and that's the key thing they have a concern about and why they would have preferred to stay under this. Also, they don't understand clearly, nor do I, I might add—and I don't know whether Mr. Hindle does—why we had to go to an agency in this form. I've asked the question many times, but I've not received.... Flexibility is what I've heard, but I don't understand exactly what flexibility is, and when I ask, it's not.... So we don't have that.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, what I'm really trying to find out by questioning them on that comment is how extensive the meetings of their organization were.

Are there resolutions moved and passed that you are representing to us or are you speaking to general impressions of what you think the members feel?

Mr. Doug Chalk: No. This is information from our vice-presidents. We have vice-presidents right across the country. We held local meetings and this is from what was stated at the local meetings. There are no resolutions or anything like that coming from those meetings. There have just been statements and the feeling of the group.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.

My last point is on the name change concern. We've had that concern from other witnesses. We certainly want to, I think, come up with the name that fits best, but among all the very serious concerns you raised, I'm a bit surprised to see that one in there.

Names of companies change all the time, and I would think that the primary concerns are working conditions and maintenance of jobs, more so than if you call something the Molson Centre or the Montreal Forum. I was upset when they changed the name, and I guess the employees were too, but a bigger concern is whether the jobs and the working conditions are there. Do you not see that at least the name of the agency is primarily a management decision, if you want to call us “the management” in this sense?

Mr. Doug Chalk: I see that just about everything going on is a management decision, and management's in charge of it, so yes, I do, but this was the concern that was most.... They live and die the parks. The people we work for live right in the communities and everything else, and the park is very important to them. Parks Canada is very important to them, because it maintains communities in some areas. That was what they wanted and so I came forward.

The rest of it, as far as the legislation and everything else is concerned...these people feel—and I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with them totally—that it's a foregone conclusion and it's over and it will happen.

So where do you put your efforts and what do you do? We're putting our efforts into the working groups, trying to fix things for them directly.

• 1030

That's basically what they think. They think once they see this in writing, this bill coming out, it's over, so while they fight and argue about that, we'll move on.

But the jobs are important, and that's what we're doing in the other area.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Do you see the actual name as being of extreme importance to your employees?

Mr. Doug Chalk: Yes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two questions. One is with respect to the advisory board and your comment that an advisory board is to be set up to consult with the minister. There is no mention specifically of employees. That caught my attention. Although I don't believe it precludes employees from being on that advisory committee, do you feel that if we specifically included employees and mentioned them as stakeholders it would provide any comfort to your members?

Mr. Steve Hindle: It may. We'd have to see it in operation.

People talk about the stakeholders, but I would note that throughout all the discussions, nobody had the idea that the employees, the people actually working in the parks, were stakeholders in what the parks were doing. To us, that seemed to be a glaring omission. Whether including them on the advisory board will make a difference or not, the one thing it will do is concretely show that the employees do matter, that they are stakeholders.

I'm hoping that nobody in this room thinks employees aren't stakeholders in the parks. People talk about how employees are our greatest asset, and when somebody says that, I always ask what they've done to show that. This is one way of showing that they are important, that they are valued as stakeholders.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I have no doubt nobody thinks that way, and I'm sure the reason you've been asked to come here today is exactly for that reason, but I thank you for pointing that out to me. When you read the legislation, little by little you get caught by....

So I thank you for bringing that to our attention. While we feel that the employees are very important—that's why you're here—it almost seems like an omission, an accidental omission, and not a correct one. That's one thing.

I want to talk to you a little bit more about the separate employer issue. You have said that under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, as a separate employer, an order to exempt has been made by the Governor in Council. I'd like to ask you two questions. First, what precipitated that order being made, and second, what have been your experiences with the food inspection group as an employer? Are there any lessons learned that we should take from this so that if we're looking at that again, this is one opportunity to fix things?

Mr. Steve Hindle: I don't know for certain, but I would think that the presentations made to the committee looking at the legislation for food inspection are what precipitated the Order in Council we were looking for. We'd like to think we had something to do with that. Whether that just means we brought something up and they realized, okay, they need this mechanism and we'll use it, fine, or whether they were going to do it in any case is not clear.

We have had a working relationship with the food inspection people for just over a year now, and we are experiencing some of the problems we expected because of the way the agency is set up. We've had some difficulties in negotiations. We're still having difficulties trying to determine what the staffing regime for that agency will be.

It seemed as though things were, “Yes, we'll take care of it; we'll be able to work together once we're set up and running, no problem”. We went through that first honeymoon period, if you will, and then it was back to business as usual. A lot of the public service mentality went over with the people who were working at the food inspection agency. We are still trying to work on that. It's perhaps too early to say that it's a failure, but it is certainly not a glowing success.

Between the alliance and the institute we can certainly provide more details, if you want them, on what the experience has been and where the problems have been. We are continuing to work with the employers and the managers at the food inspection agency to make it better, but it has been difficult. Unfortunately, we were right about some of the things we were saying.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chairman, if we could, I think that information would be very helpful, because again, we have a precedent now for looking at another separate employer situation. This is when we take the benefit of those lessons learned or things that we can do to make things better. I think that would be very helpful.

Thank you.

• 1035

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to have some clarifications. If my understanding is correct, there will be a two-year transition period for the agency. During that period, you will have to finalize all negotiations. What will happen if bargaining is still going strong at the end of those two years?

[English]

Mr. Steve Hindle: The Public Service Staff Relations Act will continue to apply, even past the two years. If the negotiations you are speaking of are for contracts, they will just continue until there is a conclusion. It's unclear to us what will happen if we do not have agreements or processes for the other aspects of the employment relationship covered by the Public Service Employment Act. Presumably it will be left to the CEO to make a decision one way or the other. That could mean continuing consultation, but it could also mean, “no, this is the way it's going to be”.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: In other words, those employees presently working within the Department of Canadian Heritage will transfer to the agency once it is up and going. At the end of those two years, they will have to decide whether they go back to the public service or stay with the agency. Is that right?

[English]

Mr. Steve Hindle: Under the current legislation I believe that is the expectation.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: That was my understanding.

[English]

Mr. Steve Hindle: But as far as I know there is no guarantee that people wanting to come back to the public service will have a job to come back to.

Mr. Doug Chalk: I think the way it works is that once the agency is proclaimed, each employee will get a letter of offer and will have 90 days to decide whether to go to the agency.

So within that 90-day period they decide whether they want to come to the agency. And that's what we are working on now. We're trying to get as many conditions of work and things like that for them before they get this letter, obviously so they can make a sensible decision about whether they want to go.

Since under the government's laws this is considered a reasonable job offer, if they refuse to go to the agency it then means they have no job. It's over. They either go to the agency or they're out, they're surplus. That's the way it works. It's 90 days from the time they get a letter of offer. That will be well within the two years. The two years won't start until the agency is proclaimed. The talk is that we are looking at letters of offer for July or September or October.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: Employees will have 90 days to decide whether to go to the agency or not. Will those who decide to go have the possibility to come back to the public service once they are made aware of the employment conditions? Will they be in the same situation then as those who had to choose between going to the agency or being declared surplus? Will they be guaranteed the opportunity to come back?

[English]

Mr. Doug Chalk: No guarantee of coming back, no.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: As a member of the grand and loyal opposition, I think one of the roles we have to play is to try to look at the difference between the rhetoric and the reality of situations.

I have been fighting DND, certainly, around the whole issue of fair and humane treatment of their surplus workers.

But I'd like to look at the whole issue of the alternative service delivery. In your estimation, is it effective? One of the questions you asked is whether it is the best solution. We are told that if there is a more effective and efficient manner of carrying something out in the private sector, then go for it.

I hear you say that what we are really looking at is people working way over time, knocking together picnic tables that have fallen apart. We are just looking at sort of a whole new kind of workforce, which has no security and very low morale, a workforce trying to make the thing look the same as it used to, simply because they care a great deal and got into that business because they care. They got into the business of parks for that reason.

• 1040

Again, I'm trying to get a picture of ASD, alternative service delivery. What does it really look like on the ground to the human beings working there? Do you have any comments or images?

Mr. Doug Chalk: The ASDs look like a way for the government, or for whoever, to pay less money and to give people fewer rights generally. Quite often the companies that get the alternative service delivery have given contributions to parties or whatever, if we want to get into the whole thing.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Now let's not get carried away here.

Mr. Doug Chalk: I'm just telling you what we think and the way it looks to us as a union. You're there doing your thing and I'd just like to say what I think.

Alternative service delivery does not always save money. The costs come out. If you notice the amount of contracting out in the government, it has gone way up while this other area of decent jobs has gone way down.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Alternative service delivery was not new with the 1996 budget. What was new was government making a very clear announcement that it would be using alternative service delivery as one of its operating principles and trying to change the structure of government. There are examples going back well before 1996. The creation of the Canada Post Corporation from the post office department in 1980 was an alternate form of delivering that service, as was putting it under the Canada Labour Code, I might add.

There are numerous mechanisms, there are a number of separate employers, and there are various kinds of crown corporations. Those are all alternative mechanisms for delivering a service. You can have them in the public service, you can have them out of it, you can have them under these things. What is different is what seemed to us to be an ideological adherence to changing the way government works, the way the public service is organized, in the interests of getting a smaller public service, not necessarily in the interests of making it a better public service or providing better service to Canadians.

Our position paper on alternative service delivery goes into more details about it, and we list a number of things people should be considering when they are looking at other forms of delivering a service.

We are not here saying you can't do that or you shouldn't do that. We think Parliament has a role to play in being part of that, but we also think the employees and the Canadian public at large have a role to play in that. There should be very public discussions about why we are trying to do this. Is this the best mechanism for delivering the service?

If it is to circumvent problems or to get around problems, let's clearly identify what the problems are and then look at what the mechanisms are or what the options are for addressing those problems. In some cases it will make eminent sense to create an alternative form of delivering the same service or to have the government stop delivering the service, period, because it's available in the private sector or because it should be delivered through private mechanisms.

That's essentially it.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I want to take exception to a comment that some of this is motivated by political contributions. I'd like it noted on the record that the answer came as a result of a question from a representative of the party that is the single largest beneficiary of union contributions to its political coffers. I would hope we would avoid that kind of insinuation and innuendo in debating public policy.

I'd like to review and go back to this labour code. You are reacting to the suggestion that it not be applied because this should not be commercially oriented, and you give some pretty compelling examples where indeed it has been used in non-commercially oriented organizations. I think you also argue rather convincingly that in many instances the parks agency will be going down the road of commercial exploitation of certain facilities.

• 1045

If these are valid arguments, why do you think the Canada Labour Code has been excluded?

Mr. Steve Hindle: That's a good question. I'm not really sure why it was precluded. I wonder whether the people who were looking at the Canadian Parks Agency did not feel that the necessary expertise was available to run the agency under the Canada Labour Code and to ensure that the managers had the requisite experience and training.

It's a different regime: you become the employer. You're much more responsible for what goes on in terms of the labour relations aspect of running an organization the size of Parks Canada. You are then responsible for bargaining on things you have no experience bargaining with. That's if you have any experience in bargaining in the first place.

It could well be that it was out of fear. I don't know. I don't have a clear answer to that myself. I would certainly be curious to see whether the committee could get an answer from the officials who were involved in drafting the legislation and making the decision go the way they proposed it, rather than through the use of the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Would you have some insights as to why the recommendation is not to go that route?

Mr. Doug Chalk: Well, I basically asked the questions when they came down. We made the recommendation before the legislation to the department that we would prefer the Canada Labour Code. They came back and said no, that was the way they were going to go. When I asked why, I again didn't really get any clear answers. I assume it's because certain things have to be negotiated rather than being employer policies or directives.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Right. Was there any exchange of correspondence between either PIPS or PSAC and the department in the consultations about this particular issue, or anything else for that matter?

Mr. Doug Chalk: I don't think there's anything on that. I think this was at a meeting where we just had that discussion. But I could check back and see if there's anything and then get it to you.

Mr. Steve Hindle: I don't recall any correspondence on it. But it should be embodied in the minutes of the meetings we've been at.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I don't want to unfairly characterize the different tones between the two presentations—it may just simply be that you were addressing different issues—but what struck me was that I had the impression from Mr. Chalk's remarks that the experience of negotiation leading up to where we are today was more positive than negative. It seemed that the problems addressed by Mr. McCarthy about the lack of trust over time between Parks Canada and its employees were, if not corrected, at least somewhat improved on by the process that led us to where we are today. I didn't have quite that feeling from Mr. Hindle, but maybe it was because he was addressing other issues.

I think it's an important question—I don't mean to contrast and compare, so you can take this any way you want—to look at the tone under which these negotiations have been undertaken, because trust is what this is all going to be about in the long run. I think it's a natural reaction that if you've been having a set of bad experiences, you want to legislate, protect, put in writing, and do all that kind of stuff. It's like a marriage contract if you think it's not going to work out. On the other hand, if you think it is going to work out, you don't need to have so much in writing.

Am I being unfair in thinking this, or am I reading too much into it in that you perhaps had a more positive experience than that of Mr. Hindle? That's why the tone of your recommendations has a slightly different flavour than the tone of Mr. Hindle's. Or am I going too far?

Mr. Doug Chalk: Well, I'm not involved in the food agency. Part of that goes to someone else, and the alliance is doing that. So I haven't had that experience.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm sorry, but I'm talking about the negotiations relating to this. I'm precluding the food agency part. I'm just talking about all the complications the Parks folks have had with you.

Mr. Doug Chalk: Our major confrontation was with the employee takeover part of it. But it seems the working groups we have set up now, in talking about the agency and coming in, have been very positive so far. We're developing a better relationship with the union people and managers from across the country.

• 1050

So in my opinion it is going in a positive direction at the moment, but some key decisions are coming up.

We don't make the decisions; somebody goes away and gets answers or whatever happens. I don't know where they're being made, but somebody makes decisions. Once those decisions are made, then that will indicate to us whether this has been a positive experience or not. We haven't reached the really crucial decisions.

That would be my opinion. Denis could maybe add some things, because he's there as well.

Mr. Denis McCarthy: I'd for the most part have to agree with what Doug is saying. However, I'd like to make a distinction as to what the process has been. There are no negotiations going on between the unions and the Canadian Parks Agency or Parks Canada. There are very intensive consultations, which we have been involved in.

We have come to agreements with regard to the Charter of Rights that are going to be basically enshrined in the legislation. The working group developed that, it was presented to the steering committee that's acting as the main consulting group for the agency, and then it was recommended to Tom Lee to be accepted. Mr. Lee accepted it, and it's my understanding that it's going to be enclosed in the charter.

This gives you an indication of the process. It was recommended to him. He had the option of either accepting it or not accepting it, so there was no negotiation of this. It was developed, and the onus was on the employer to say yea or nay to the situation. That's the situation we still find ourselves in with all the other issues on the table at this point in time. Nobody really has a mandate to sit down and say let's sign a document, let's have an agreement on this, and let's go in this direction. That's the biggest problem we're facing at this point in time.

However, the consultations have very beneficial aspects to them. I think it's the first time we've ever been in this particular type of environment, and it's working quite well, from my perspective.

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Hindle.

Mr. Steve Hindle: It's an interesting observation, and perhaps what you're seeing is the fact that both Mr. Chalk and Mr. McCarthy are dealing at the table with the department and have the history of that dealing. That will colour their method of putting it forward.

Mr. John Godfrey: Sure.

Mr. Steve Hindle: For my part, I deal at a different level. I've been involved with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and some of the cynicism that has obviously come forward here is as a result of those dealings. I have been involved in some fairly high-level discussions on the proposed revenue agency, and that too colours my perception and my method of presentation, as well as my general outlook on what's going on.

I tend to be quite cynical about what the government is trying to do. In some cases part of it is right, but it's not for the right reason. They're not actually going to the nub of the problem.

Mr. John Godfrey: You put it very well, and we understand where you're coming from, but was there not a parallel process of consultation that looked a bit like what the alliance had for the institute?

Mr. Steve Hindle: Well, Mr. McCarthy is a member of the institute.

Mr. John Godfrey: Oh, I'm sorry. I meant backwards. Yes, that's right. I had it back to front. Okay.

Mr. Steve Hindle: The difference is both these gentlemen are at the table on the ground floor with Parks. I've been involved in some of the higher-level discussions, not just about parks. Both Mr. Chalk and Mr. McCarthy have been kind enough to explain to me what's going on, but I've been dealing with other things as well. I've been dealing with food inspection, Revenue Canada, negotiations with the Treasury Board, the universal classification standard, and all the other government initiatives that are going on.

Mr. John Godfrey: Let me put the question differently.

The Chairman: This is your last question.

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes.

This is perhaps an unfair question, but from the reports you're getting from the field, so to speak—and I'm hoping the answer is yes—are you detecting a qualitative difference between the tone of the consultations these folks have been undertaking with Parks Canada and what has been happening with the food inspection agency and the revenue agency?

Mr. Steve Hindle: I'll make you happy: yes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay, you have a very short question. Mr. Bélanger will have the floor next.

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, I have a very brief question. I am quite tempted to make a comment also, but I will pass so that Mr. Bélanger may have some time.

• 1055

Personally, I find that clause 13 is cause for concern. I am concerned about the sweeping powers given to the CEO. He has the exclusive power to do just about everything and anything. If my understanding is correct, however, you would prefer dealing with one single person that has full powers, rather than deal with a board of directors. I would like you to explain this to me. It seems that having to be under the direction of just one person with absolute powers opens the door to arbitrary decisions, even though there is some protection.

[English]

Mr. Steve Hindle: We would prefer that the legislation be changed so we can negotiate the full scope of terms and conditions of employment. If that's with a CEO or with a board of directors, there is little difference, from our point of view, as long as we have the opportunity and the right to negotiate the full scope of the terms and conditions of employment.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I just was tantalized by one question. Basically you said that some of what the government has done is right, but for the wrong reason. You said they still haven't got to the nub of the problem, and I want to hear what you have to say about what the nub of the problem is.

Mr. Steve Hindle: I would put the nub of the problem as the government's respect for its employees, the government's support for its employees and for recognizing what public service employees—no matter whether they're unionized or non-unionized—contribute to the functioning of government, and perhaps more important, what they contribute to Canada continuing to be at the top of the UN's list of good places to live. There needs to be some very strong support from members of Parliament and members of the government in particular for what the public service brings to Canadians, the public services of this country—and it goes beyond the federal, but we'll stick to federal here.

The provision of the infrastructure in this country allows the private sector to run the country, to run the economy, to generate jobs, to generate income, and to make profits. Yes, I'm a union president, and profit is not a bad word. Profit is what allows for economic expansion, it allows for economic prosperity, and it allows us to pay for the things that are necessary in this country and that have been the underpinnings of Canadian society for such a long time. It puts in place mechanisms that ensure there are well-educated, healthy people in the workforce who are available to private industry to exploit natural resources, to run businesses, and to run the functioning of the country. It provides for a strong health care system in this country and a good education system.

There needs to be more recognition of the value of public service employees. Let's start talking about actually providing service to employees. Let's get beyond just how much government costs and let's talk about what government does, what government provides to the public, to the government, and to Parliament, and what it allows other people to do. If we can start talking about those things and start showing that there is recognition of the value of public service employees as employees and as people, and as people who pay taxes, then perhaps we will start to build a relationship where we can build some trust, where we can have some respect for each other, and where we can work together to ensure that the Canadians who pay our salaries—and they pay my salary too—get the service they need from government.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, you may ask one last brief question.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In fact, I want to ask for some information. Could we get a copy of the following provisions: subsection 11(2) of the Financial Administration Act and also the appropriate provisions from the Public Service Staff Relations Act. We need to have the wording of those provisions in order to be able to see for ourselves when some sections are being referred to. Just this morning, two provisions from the Public Service Staff Relations Act were mentioned. I think it was sections 7 and 69(3). I think it would be better to have the provisions at hand.

Finally, I want to thank the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada for its very clear presentation and its forceful arguments. I can't wait to hear our next witnesses. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Just briefly before we close, Mr. Hindle and Mr. Chalk, I'd like to say something.

This is a confusing issue for a lot of us, the whole question of labour relationships. You made a point, Mr. Hindle, that struck me: you want to be under the umbrella of the Public Service Commission as an overseer of ethics and the value system it protects. At the same time, if I understood you rightly, if you're outside the PSEA, then somehow you can't take advantage of the Public Service Commission. What do you see as a mechanism to allow the agency to be under the umbrella of the Public Service Commission if it is not attached to the PSEA?

• 1100

Mr. Steve Hindle: I don't see any mechanism if it's not attached. I see the choices as having the Public Service Employment Act apply to the agency or removing the Public Service Staff Relations Act as well and putting the agency under the Canada Labour Code.

The Chairman: If the agency were put under the Canada Labour Code, in your view, would that give you the kind of protection that would be included by the umbrella of the Public Service Commission?

Mr. Steve Hindle: We believe it would allow the parties to develop the mechanism that would address those concerns, and we would put it to you that it is in the interest of the employees to ensure that the staffing regime does not include the possibility of patronage and has safeguards against patronage. Those are the safeguards that would normally be available through the Public Service Employment Act.

We would say if the labour code applies, we would have the opportunity, on behalf of the employees, to ensure that merit is the guiding principle in staffing. Failing that, some other mechanism needs to be in place. It's curious that I would say it should be the Public Service Commission, because I have difficulty with the Public Service Commission the way it currently operates, but it's still better than having no watchdog on the merit principle.

The Chairman: So whatever means it is, you seek a comparable watchdog that will prevent abuse and patronage.

Mr. Steve Hindle: That's a fair characterization.

The Chairman: Is that a fair summation, Mr. Chalk?

Mr. Doug Chalk: That's pretty good. We would like to negotiate everything on the table and be part of the destiny of where that's going, the staffing and everything else. If there's a difficulty in decision-making, we'd have a third party outside the agency that rules, an arbitrator or whichever we take it to. That's the way we would like to see it.

The Chairman: I have just one last brief question to follow up on what Mrs. Bulte was asking you about the advisory board and inclusion of employees as stakeholders. I think in both the briefs, but it could have been one of them, you referred to boards of directors. You referred to the museums as an example, saying they're too remote; there's no connection; they are out there somewhere. Could you comment on how you see the comparison between the advisory board that would be provided and the type of establishment in the museums, where you have a regular type of board of directors?

Mr. Doug Chalk: The boards in the museums are basically appointments of people from all over the place, and they have nothing to do with the running of the museum itself. That's a difficulty. They have ultimate power to give direction to the CEO, but it doesn't have to be followed. We really don't care for that process. We would sooner have the CEO and then we deal with the CEO.

Where we want the stakeholder part is where the CEO is mandated to call in environmental people and everything else. We want to sit there with them and hear what's being said and put in our concerns at that level, and then they take the whole package away and do what they do with it. That's the board we're referring to in that one.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Can I just ask a technical question?

The Chairman: Yes, sure.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Where particularly in the bill would you insert that? My understanding is that the part that deals with the advisory committee is 11(4). Would you want a separate clause in the bill that deals with that, as an amendment? I'm just trying to find out where in the bill we would put it to make sure it's put in properly, if we should decide to put it in.

Mr. Steve Hindle: I'm not quite sure; do you mean put in the employees as stakeholders?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes.

Mr. Steve Hindle: I would say it would be in the composition of the advisory committee, as a minimum. I'm not sure exactly which portion of the act deals with the advisory committee and its composition, and it may be intended that it will be done by regulation, but it should be in the composition of the advisory committee itself.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay. Thank you.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

• 1105

The Chairman: I just want to check this carefully, but I understand the act provides for public forums. Does it also provide for an advisory board?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That's my understanding.

The Chairman: I thought we were talking about advisory boards as such. Anyway, I think the point is taken.

Mr. Hindle, Mr. Chalk, Mrs. Diehl, and Mr. McCarthy, we really appreciate your presence here. You have been very forthright and certainly have made your case very eloquently. We understand where you're coming from, and that helps the debate. Thank you very much. We're going to be hearing from the minister and from the senior officials in a short while. This certainly gives us your point of view. Thank you very much indeed.

Mr. Steve Hindle: You're welcome, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to you and the members of your committee.

The Chairman: Excuse me. While we wait for the minister to arrive, could we just deal with three short items of business, please?

First of all, those who attended the last meeting know there was a discussion about Bill C-38 and Mrs. Nellie Cournoyea. There was a misunderstanding, because the clerk of the committee had been dealing with an agent, thinking the agent was the agent of Mrs. Cournoyea, amongst others. Somehow there was confusion. He or she was the agent of Mrs. Cournoyea.

Anyway, the end result is that Mrs. Cournoyea will be here on May 14, 1998 to appear before us, definitely. So for those of you who wanted to know this, that is the information.

Second, you might have received a memo about the cultural study and the travelling. It's obvious that with two pieces of legislation, we just can't. We have to finish these; this is our primary function. We explain exactly why and wherefore in that memo. If you have any questions, please address them to the clerk or me.

Third, you may have received on e-mail, but it will be followed by the regular message system, a memo from me regarding clause-by-clause study of Bill C-29, asking for amendments by Monday afternoon so that we can deal with them when the committee looks at clause-by-clause, starting on Wednesday.

If by any chance this is too short a time for you to deal with the aspects covered today—we don't want to be so rigid that we say if it is not in by 5 o'clock, the amendment won't be considered—surely let us know. Let us know if you need a little more time.

We're trying to use the time that is provided to the committee to deal with clause-by-clause starting Wednesday, but obviously I don't want to be a policeman here. If you are not finished by Monday, by all means let me know. We'll just have it on Tuesday or Wednesday morning, and I'm sure the members will understand.

Do you have any questions?

[Translation]

Madame Tremblay.

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: I think that some members of this committee are running out of breath because of how big the Subcommittee on sports has turned out to be. We are sitting almost day and night. I was wondering whether it would be possible to better coordinate the work of both committees because it is not easy sitting from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and then again from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. I find it is a very heavy schedule and I feel it is imposing on our availability and on the time that we would like to spend on examining all the issues. I think that there has been a blatant lack of coordination between our two committees. The subcommittee has taken much wider proportions than what had been anticipated and I don't know what you can do to improve the situation. Next week, for example, we will be sitting day and night from Tuesday to Thursday. It really doesn't make sense. There is a limit to what you can accept.

• 1110

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay, I am very happy that you bring up the problem because I did discuss it earlier with the clerk. When we all approved as a committee the proposal to form a subcommittee, I must say I did not expect it to get so big that we would make the national news and examine what will happen with the National Hockey League. It seems that it has really turned out to be very big with a lot of media attention.

As we were saying yesterday, it is getting bigger and bigger and it is beginning to affect our main business which is very important. After all, our committee is supposed to be considering bills and the clerk and I intend to talk to the chair of the subcommittee to tell him that from now on, the members will be called to this committee's meetings first and that meetings of the sports subcommittee and others will have to come second. They will be free not to attend the meetings of those committees. If the subcommittee on sports does not have enough members, it should go find them somewhere else. I think that we should not let this subcommittee affect our main business just because it has taken such enormous proportions.

Mr. John Godfrey: I think that this committee should take precedence because it is considering a bill.

The Chairman: Is takes precedence over everything else.

Mr. John Godfrey: No question about it.

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: For example, last week, we were called to a meeting that was supposed to last from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., but it went on until noon. It is hard to leave the room before the end of a meeting.

I'm usually the only opposition member, but all of a sudden three Reform members, three NDP members and two PCs show up. There weren't even enough chairs in the room. This is getting ridiculous. It seems there is something wrong.

The Chairman: Of course, when there are TV crews, people show up because they hope to make the news.

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: I know, but I don't agree.

The Chairman: As far as this committee is concerned, I will take care of it.

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: It's only a subcommittee and it still is under your responsibility.

The Chairman: It is indeed a subcommittee. I will go and talk to the chairman as soon as possible. I have already discussed it at length with the clerk. I think things are getting out of hand. This subcommittee has become so big it is now affecting the work of this committee which is more important because it is dealing with legislation.

I will now ask the committee members for their opinion and I would like it to be recorded. Tell me whether you think that going to the meetings of both committees takes too long and whether you agree to come to the meetings of this committee and withdraw from the subcommittee. I will tell Mr. Mills to look for new members that have more time because we have had enough. Is has obviously taken such proportions that it is now completely out of hand.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: May I bring up another issue?

The Chairman: Of course.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It is about the letter you have received from Mr. MacKay, I think, from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. I'm sure you must remember that I am not a big fan of that organization. Ms. Tremblay was not with us at the time, but we had many interesting exchanges about Bill C-32, the Copyright Act.

I think, however, that they make a valid point. I don't know whether this committee intends to meet with the broadcasters in the course of its work on a Canadian cultural policy. I think it would be appropriate to meet with them and with other similar national organizations, such as the ones we have not been in contact with yet. Is this your intention, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Indeed. We are thinking about having a roundtable in June and they would be included with all the other broadcasting groups. I am sure that there are some people we have to hear. I totally agree with you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Have they been contacted?

The Chairman: We will consider it and let them know. But we have to discuss it first with committee members because we have to determine the process for the roundtable. We will contact them as soon as possible after this is done.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Meanwhile, I will let Mr. MacKay know that we are taking care of it.

[English]

Mr. Muise, you weren't there when I discussed it, but I just want to let you know that the agent the clerk had been negotiating with, the one we told you about, was definitely the agent who negotiated for Mrs. Cournoyea, but she in turn was expecting a direct invitation in writing from the committee. She thought that's the way it worked. We have been talking to this agent and it was a total misunderstanding. Anyway, she's slated to come here on May 14, if you would put it on your agenda. I repeat there was no intention whatsoever not to hear her.

• 1115

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you. I would like to apologize for not being here during the first part; however, I had three meetings at the same time. I was pulling out some hair but there's not much to pull.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: On the general question, this committee is a huge committee and it covers all sorts of areas, parks and culture and sports. I find it is an unwieldy beast. I personally have critical responsibilities with persons with disabilities and I'm trying to keep my sanity while covering heritage, arts and culture, and disabilities. I'm not sure how everybody else is dealing with these amazing demands from this one committee. I'd be interested in knowing.

The Chairman: Unfortunately these committees are based on ministries and the ministry is now an amalgam of what was the communications ministry, what was the ministry of sports, and what was Parks Canada. It's a huge ministry. The committee has to tie in with the ministry.

There are ways where we could, for instance, start to create subcommittees. If we do, we have the problem we had in the question of sports, which is worse because we'll lose members and then we can't operate here with our legislation. Unfortunately, as Mr. Muise was just explaining, I'm living the same thing you are living right now. This is my third meeting this morning. We chase from place to place, but I think all the parties are suffering the same way.

[Translation]

Madame Tremblay.

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, maybe I am mistaken, but I think I saw a notice of a meeting on my desk this morning for Tuesday, May 5, 1998 from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. with the CRTC.

An hon. member: It's a meeting about official languages.

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: Oh, I see. Fine. I was wondering because we are still on Bill C-29 and I couldn't understand why they would want to meet with us.

The Chairman: No, that's not it.

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: I think we wanted to have them back.

The Chairman: Yes, you're quite right. But it won't be next week.

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: Okay. Very well. We will have time for a breather.

The Chairman: The committee will now adjourn and take a coffee break until the minister arrives.

• 1118

• 1123

[English]

The Chairman: We'll now resume the session on the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-29. We're very fortunate today to have the presence of the minister responsible for Parks Canada, and Mr. Tom Lee, the assistant deputy minister responsible for Parks.

We should point out, Mr. Minister, and I apologize, that a lot of the members have been called to other committees where there are votes and stuff. This is why you see a small attendance. We lost two or three in the process. But you understand these things just as well as we do.

Mr. Minister, the floor is yours.

Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, having been on the other side of the table not that long ago, I do understand the challenges you face as a committee and as a chair in particular.

First of all, let me thank the committee for taking the time to hear me and in a more general sense thank the committee for the work they're doing in examining Bill C-29. I very much appreciate it. I'm going to speak for a few minutes about some points that I think are important to discuss, and then I'll be quite happy to go around and answer questions from members about some particular points or clarifications on my comments.

• 1125

As you mentioned, with me today is Tom Lee, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for Parks Canada. I will endeavour to answer the questions myself, but if they become technical in nature, I will be asking Tom to assist me as well.

In terms of Bill C-29, I am of the firm belief that it represents the beginning of a new era for Parks Canada. It has been a time of challenge for Parks in the last several years as we've gone through a number of transitions, in addition to the fact that Parks has almost been the orphaned type of department as it's gone from Indian Affairs to Environment and now into Heritage. I think there's a need, and in fact it is one of my priorities, to bring the certainty to that organization that I think it deserves and warrants.

As you have probably already heard, I had an opportunity to undertake an extensive round of consultation on the issue of the agency. That followed up a previous consultation that had taken place the year prior to me assuming this position.

I had an opportunity in that consultation to talk not only to Canadians in general but to specific stakeholders who have worked with Parks over the years and have taken a keen interest. Most importantly, I think, as we did this round of consultations, in each community we went to we had a separate consultation with the employees of Parks Canada so that we could hear the input of those people who best know the work we do and whose advice we value considerably.

It was also a great opportunity for me, having just assumed the portfolio, to learn a lot about parks and our historic sites across Canada, whether it was sitting at Fort Rodd Hill in British Columbia and seeing the ships arriving from across the Pacific, or standing in St. John's, Newfoundland and seeing the ships arriving from across the Atlantic, or whether it was in Montreal at the home of George-Étienne Cartier and appreciating the foresight that led to the founding of this great nation, or having lunch with the employees of Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba and having an opportunity to understand their dedication to protecting that very special place in Manitoba, or whether it was in Banff, where we met as well, and where I had an opportunity to imagine the thrill that Canadians have had over and over again in the last 113 years as they come up the Bow Valley and see that for the first time, and to understand the foresight and the wisdom of those people who over a century ago made the decision to make that Canada's first national park. Even in my own riding, where Georgian Bay Island National Park, the smallest geographically of all the national parks, sits on the cusp of the Canadian Shield—in fact, you can actually see the Canadian Shield rise on the islands of Georgian Bay—it was an opportunity for me to understand the history that geographical formation has had for this country.

That's just some of the understanding and the appreciation we have for the great series of assets that have been included in Parks Canada.

The development of an agency is a way for us to proceed to make sure that we, as public policy individuals, can ensure that our employees have the tools in order to fulfil the important public mandates that we have established.

What are some of those mandates? First of all, for the completion of our national parks system, it's our intent to proceed to ensure that there's at least one national park in each of our geographic regions, and we've designated 39 of them.

It's also our mandate to work towards the enhancement of our national historic sites and to add to those as we move forward. We have set as an important priority, as you all know, the protection, in an unimpaired state, of these special sites for future generations. The Canadians of today, those of us around this table, have no right to use up those assets so that they're not available for the future. Ours is an obligation to ensure that our use of those areas is done in a way such that those assets can also be enjoyed by our children and our children's children. We've established as a mandate for Parks—and it's clearly in the preamble to this bill—the need to educate and to interpret the uniqueness and the specialness of those places for all of us in this great country.

• 1130

We've also recognized the need that we want the agency to operate in a business-like manner, whilst remembering that we are not a business. I think this legislation helps to work toward achieving that goal.

The agency legislation you have in front of you provides a number of very specific tools that will help our employees carry out those very important mandates.

First of all, we're bringing organizational simplicity to the portfolio. Essentially, we are flattening the organization and have already proceeded a long way towards doing that. Under this system, there will be a field superintendent who reports directly to the head of agency and is accountable directly to the head of agency, who is accountable to the minister.

You can see that we have very much streamlined the structure, and that will allow for two things to happen. It will allow for organizational simplicity as decisions can be made at the local level, taking into account local conditions and concerns without having to go through that long process of sending it up to regional office or to head office. Having worked in the private sector for a large corporate organization and having experienced the frustration of requesting head office to approve, in my case, loan credits, I know how important it is to get those decisions down at the local level.

We're also ensuring that there's organizational stability—and I talked about that in my opening comments, in the sense that we don't want to have a situation where it goes from department A to department B to department C—where we can have a self-contained organization within which there can be some certainty and some predictability for our employees.

We're going to provide, through the establishment of the agency, important financial flexibilities. We're going to be able to retain almost all of the revenue we generate within the portfolio, for the use of the portfolio, rather than it going back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as it has historically.

We are going to move toward two-year rolling budgets so that, quite frankly, decisions are made with the best business sense in mind, not necessarily with one eye on the calendar, particularly in the month of March. We're also going to have the ability to establish a non-lapsing capital account. We're going to have the ability such that when we notice that we have an asset we no longer require, perhaps a fleet of vehicles or something that we wish to sell off, that revenue that would have historically gone to the Consolidated Revenue Fund will stay within Parks and can be invested in the projects that we believe are important.

The legislation to establish the agency also establishes a new human resource regime. What we are essentially trying to do is create a human resource regime that is flexible enough to reflect the realities of Parks Canada as opposed to trying to meet the minimum standards of the broader public service.

Our employees face conditions that are quite different from what most public servants face. We operate seven days a week. We operate 24 hours a day. We operate in every type of geographic area in this country. It's important that we have a human resource regime that reflects those realities. But it's also important that we do it in a way that balances this need for flexibility with the need to provide the appropriate protection to our employees, and I believe the legislation as presented to you and in front of you today achieves that dual goal.

There was a second thing in that area, besides the tools, that I heard when I travelled through the country, and it was the issue of public accountability.

I want to make something very clear, and I've made it clear before and I'll do so again. This agency is a public agency. It is a government agency. As I travelled through the country, Canadians said they wanted the stewardship of our special places to be a public stewardship, publicly accountable, and that is what we have before us today: the public stewardship and public accountability of what Canadians consider to be their very special places.

• 1135

In fact, Mr. Chairman, we have improved and enhanced the reporting that will take place to Parliament in respect of parks and our other special places. We will begin with this agency to table the five-year corporate plan summary in Parliament for review by parliamentarians. There will be an annual report to Parliament on the operation of the agency. There will be a five-year human resource assessment tabled in Parliament for a review by parliamentarians. There will be an annual auditor general report specifically in respect of the agency, which will be tabled in Parliament and subject to review by parliamentarians. The State of the Canadian Protected Heritage Area report, which formally was known as the State of the Parks report, is being expanded and will include other related areas in addition to parks. Again, that will be tabled in Parliament every two years and available to parliamentarians, and indeed available to this committee, if it so chooses.

The historic site management plans will now be tabled in Parliament, where they have not been in the past, and these are in addition to what already takes place by parliamentarians. As we all know, national parks are designated and established by Parliament, and that will continue. We will continue, as parliamentarians, to approve the appropriations for our national parks and other special places. As is the case now, the management plans for the individual parks will be presented and tabled to Parliament. Every three years Parliament receives, and will continue to receive, a sustainable development plan in respect of our national parks and other special places.

Also, the agency remains firmly accountable to the minister. All the powers the minister now has in respect of the department, the minister will continue to have in respect of the agency.

The development of policy as it relates to our parks will remain the prerogative of the minister, and as such there will be ministerial accountability to Parliament. Treasury Board will continue to review and update annually our corporate plan, and the bargaining mandate we undertake as an agency will be concurred in by Treasury Board.

I think one can see very clearly, Mr. Chairman, that one of our priorities has been to ensure public accountability and to ensure that we, as parliamentarians, can continue to exercise that accountability.

There has also been, and I know from reading some of the testimony and minutes that came forward here, the whole issue of including the public as part of the process of overseeing our special places in Canada. We heard a lot about that as we travelled through and across the country. As I made those presentations, I explained that whatever structures are to develop, they will not be allowed to impinge upon the public accountability exercised by Parliament, nor did I want to see us create a bureaucracy that would become self-sustaining and growing. One of my objectives is to streamline the organization, not to add new layers of bureaucracy.

Right now—I don't know whether this came out in earlier testimony—we in Parks Canada have 70 existing advisory bodies. I know you heard from the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. That is probably the most known of our advisory bodies, but we also have advisory bodies that deal with land claims, with the local advisory bodies at the local sites, with things like certain types of science. We have other advisory bodies that operate in our mountain parks that provide us with specific advice.

• 1140

Of course, we also have some ad hoc advisory bodies. Most of you are familiar with the Bow Valley study, and that is an example of an ad hoc advisory process where we had an opportunity to receive input. I believe strongly that each one of us around this table and each one of our colleagues in the House acts as an advisory body to the government as they receive the input from their constituents.

What we wanted to do—and we've found a great deal of support for this—was to have a biannual forum so that in addition to all the advisory bodies we now have, we would add a national forum wherein Canadians could come forward and give us their ideas on where we would go. We would also be looking to see what their assessment is of where we have been. This will in fact not always be good news for the management of Parks Canada. I suspect there will be some strong criticism at those forums, and we look to that as a way of making ourselves more efficient and seeing where we can work better.

Indeed, the results of those forums will find their way into what is now the State of the Parks report, which will be an expanded report. I believe this is a good way of finding that balance between making sure we have the forum for input and not creating undue bureaucracy or impinging upon the elected accountability of Parliament and members of Parliament.

Just before I open this up to questions, there were a couple of specific points I wanted to deal with. One of them has to do with the whole issue of trying to understand the relationship between the agency and the department. I thought I would touch on that briefly in my opening comments.

The agency is an operational agency. Its job is to carry out policy and to ensure that is done in a way that is efficient. That's the role of the agency. The agency does not formulate policy. Policy is formulated by the minister, in this case the Minister of Heritage, with the advice of the ministry of heritage. That's essentially the relationship. Policy is formulated at the political accountable level, and the carrying out of that policy is the responsibility of the agency.

I understand there has also been some discussion about the name of the agency. This is something I have heard about and talked about with a number of individuals, including the employees of Parks Canada. One of the things I have come to learn, which I knew intuitively because of the number of sites within my own riding but which I have come to learn even more in my role as Secretary of State, is that we have some very special people working for us in Parks Canada. These are men and women who are dedicated beyond all else to the protection of our special places and to ensuring they're there for future generations.

We want to make sure these people are doing their work on behalf of all Canadians, that it is for Canadians that this work is being done. I think the name that has been suggested will reflect that. That's one of the reasons we have put forward the name in the way we have.

I know there have been suggestions about expanding it to include more than just the nomenclature that is there. There was one suggestion that the name be the Canadian Parks and Historic Sites Agency. I respect and admire and understand that we need to recognize our historic sites as well, but it isn't just those two things; it isn't just parks and historic sites. What about our historic waterways: the Trent-Severn, the Rideau Canal, the Chambly Canal? Those are all part of our mandate as well. What about our heritage rivers? They would not be in the name. What about our heritage railway stations? Most of us have one or two of those in our ridings.

• 1145

So I think it's important to understand the difference between the name of the agency and the name of the various components the agency operates on or for. There is a distinction between the two, and I think it's important to understand that distinction when we are dealing with the name.

If there are other questions on that, I would be happy to answer them, but that's the way I have looked at that.

Finally, I want to talk briefly about the mandate, and this leads a little bit from my comments on the name. The agency has the responsibility to carry out a whole series of pieces of legislation, and with those pieces of legislation comes a mandate that the agency is required to carry out. So when it comes to parks, the National Parks Act has a very specific mandate within that legislation, and this agency is required to carry out the legislation and therefore that mandate. It's the same thing with historic sites and with the railroad stations, and so on.

To emphasize that and to emphasize the inclusiveness of the agency, that it includes that broad range of things, you will find in the preamble a statement of our principles. If you go through it, it enunciates clearly the various components of our portfolio.

So we should never forget that those strong, hard mandates are still there, and they're there in the legislation that this agency is mandated to carry out.

I've probably gone on far too long with opening comments, but that is my opening, and I'd be happy to entertain questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do have a meeting to get to, so I'd appreciate it if you could allocate me my time. I'll make my questions very brief, and if the minister answers briefly, we'll get through it no problem.

First, could you clarify what will happen to the federal heritage review office under Bill C-29? Will it be transferred to the new agency or remain with the heritage department?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: It continues to be with the agency, and its function will continue to be carried out. The same divisions exist, though. The operational side belongs to the agency; the policy side belongs to the department.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: You mentioned the establishment of more parks. I think there are 15 more left to go to have one park in each of the 39 distinctive regions of our country. Will the agency assist you in meeting that goal?

Secondly, is that a practical goal right now, considering the budgetary realities of the new agency? Specifically what I'm getting at is that leaseholders and tourists don't want to see skyrocketing fees so that Parks Canada can meet a deadline of 2000.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Let me answer that in a couple of ways, and I know you want me to be brief.

First of all, is it a challenging objective? Yes, it is. Am I going to make it on the timeframe I want? I don't know, but I'll tell you one thing; I'm not going to let myself or my department or the government off the hook by dropping the goal, because if I drop the goal, I can guarantee I won't reach it.

We are in fact going to work towards that. Will the agency allow me to do it better? Yes, it will. We have faced, as you all know, in government across the board, substantial reconfiguration, substantial reduction. This agency is not about reducing; we've already gone through that in Parks. This agency is about providing us with a vehicle that will allow us to carry out our mandate, facing the new realities that we face today. Will it allow me to do it better? Will it allow Parks and the government to do it better? I absolutely believe it will.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: You were discussing the name of the agency and the reason you called it what you did. But would simply calling it Parks Canada Agency still meet the objective you discussed and be able to retain the identity of Parks Canada and keep all the signage and stuff like that?

• 1150

Mr. Andy Mitchell: First of all, let me make the distinction clear. Because we're changing the name of the agency, as I said, it doesn't mean we're necessarily changing the names of the parts within our portfolio.

For instance, in my riding I have Bethune House, the birthplace of Dr. Norman Bethune. That will continue to be an historic site, regardless of what I call the agency. The Trent-Severn Waterway is going to be a heritage waterway, regardless of what I call the agency.

So I don't think the problem is going to be that we are going to have to change a bunch of signs, etc. I think what I'm trying to do with the name Canadian Parks Agency is make it clear that we are acting and doing these special things on behalf of Canadians.

I understand your concern about the various components within, and that's why I'm trying to make the distinction between the name of the agency and the components it administers.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Your answer, then, is that you don't think calling it Parks Canada Agency would achieve that. You think it needs to be called the Canadian Parks Agency.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Yes. That's my belief, but I accept the fact that different people will have different opinions.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I have just another couple of really quick questions here.

The CEO can be reappointed indefinitely, I think, according to the legislation. Wouldn't it be more practical to limit how many terms he could be reappointed for so that you don't end up with a...?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Obviously the downside of that is that if you get a really good chief executive officer who is doing a fantastic job, because of the fact you've put a limit on it you have to let him or her go. Then you might replace him or her with somebody who may not be of the same quality. That could be a detriment. I think we should leave it open so that we can make the decisions appropriate for the reality we face at the time.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: It's required that a summary of the corporate plan be tabled in Parliament. Why a summary as opposed to the entire corporate plan?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: For ease of production and review. I would suspect that if after a parliamentarian—and, Tom, correct me if I'm wrong—reviewed the summary he or she wanted the full corporate plan, we could release it.

Mr. Thomas Lee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks, Department of Canadian Heritage): I would expect the parliamentarians would read the summary, identify the additional information they wanted, and request it.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: And that would be provided too.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: And they would get it.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Lastly, you mentioned the preamble of the bill, but there was concern raised about that at one of our committee meetings, specifically that the preamble doesn't have written into it that the overall purpose is also the use and enjoyment of the parks. The concern was that, stemming from the restrictive preamble, special interest groups could try to direct the parks in the direction of limiting use and enjoyment. I'm wondering whether there would be any opposition from you to inserting in the preamble something about the use and enjoyment of the parks for future generations. I can't remember the exact wording right now. Would you oppose inserting those words?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I've heard that suggestion as well, but I don't think it's necessary, and the reason for it goes back to my comments earlier. The legislation makes it clear that the agency has to carry out the mandate of various pieces of legislation. One of those pieces of legislation is the National Parks Act. Its mandate clearly states that part of what we do is to ensure that Canadians can enjoy our national parks today.

So it's really already there, and I think some of it comes from just trying to understand our approach to things, which was to create the agency and then charge the agency with carrying out these various pieces of legislation. The agency is required to carry out the mandate under the National Parks Act, and that mandate includes ensuring that Canadians can enjoy our national parks today.

So I believe we've covered that point. It's an important point. I don't disagree that our parks need to be there for Canadians to enjoy. That's one of the reasons we have them.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: So you would not have any specific objections, then, to adding that to the preamble.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I think it's redundant, in the sense that it's already there. The agency legislation says it's required to carry out the mandate of the National Parks Act, and the mandate of the National Parks Act has in it exactly what it is you're concerned about.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your very clear presentation. It sums up very well the present situation, although it does leave some questions unanswered, including the first one which is a bit odd.

• 1155

We have just been told that if we intend to move some amendments, we have until Monday afternoon to do it. You must think that your bill is close to perfection. The officials that appeared before us seemed to say that this was an excellent bill. The briefings we went to didn't leave us much hope of improving it because it has been so well thought out, there were such lengthy consultations and the whole staff has approved it.

Tell us the truth, is it worth spending the whole weekend working on amendments?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: One of the things I always wanted to make sure of when I was a member of the committee was that my prerogatives as a committee member were respected. So I won't suggest in any way how you should undertake your work as a committee. It's whatever you think best.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: I can buy the idea that management will be streamlined and that there will be greater stability, and I agree with the proposed budget. If everything works out so well, I wonder why you don't go ahead and abolish all departments to replace them with agencies. Maybe there will be even more savings.

I'm concerned, however, about the new human resource regime. The CEO will have huge powers. It might be worthwhile for the government to keep him or her for a very long time, but maybe not for the employees because he or she will have to make fairly drastic decisions in some cases.

What guarantees do the employees have that it will truly be a whole new human resource regime consistent with the latest theories being taught in our business administration schools, i.e. that the staff is important and should be treated humanely? This is one aspect that is never addressed in legislations, but it is important nevertheless.

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I agree with you that one of our priorities has to be our employees. That's why when we go about....

In my preamble, I mentioned that we're trying to build a new human resource regime. Both our employees and the unions that represent our employees have been our partners in developing that regime. We did a number of things, but one of the primary things was to establish five committees, made up of employees and the union and management, to discuss some of the very specific concerns that I think you're alluding to.

If I understand it correctly, they have on one committee established the personnel values and principles under which we're going to operate as an agency. The unions have accepted that, and had been part of developing it.

The question would be, okay, great, you've started off well. You have the values and principles that you want to make sure we have. We as employees have been part of that, and we accept them. We as a union have been part of that, and we accept them. But we also have to make sure there's a structure in place to make sure it's going to be an ongoing process.

That's why we've developed a system where within five years and every five years thereafter, those values and principles are actually going to be tabled in Parliament. If somebody believes they're going off the rails, we as parliamentarians will have an opportunity to have input to that.

So there is a mechanism by which the people most affected have been included in the process of developing those principles. As well, we've built a safeguard to make sure that if something happens later on that we're not happy with, it's going to go to Parliament, and we as parliamentarians will be able to act.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: On a totally different issue, I would like to know whether there are provisions in the Bill to guarantee compliance with the Official Languages Act. Two years ago, I went to visit some parks and historical sites in the Maritimes, particularly in Newfoundland, and I was a bit put off to find there were no French pamphlets left at the beginning of July. The person right ahead of me had taken the last one. I thought it quite strange that there would have been so many French-speaking visitors to Newfoundland and the Maritimes, and then I thought that it probably was one pamphlet left over from the year before. Do we have any guarantee that there will be literature available in French and that more copies will be printed before we run out of them?

• 1200

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: You're absolutely right that we have an obligation to provide our services in Parks Canada, which is an obligation we take seriously, in both official languages from coast to coast to coast, and we will endeavour to do that. I'll certainly endeavour to ensure that it's done.

Here is my understanding. I'm not a lawyer, so I have to take the advice of counsel. From what I've been told, the legislation inherently follows the official languages legislation. What I will be happy to do is get a written opinion from Justice—I'm sure I'll table it in this committee—that in fact the legislation as so structured ensures that the Official Languages Act will apply to the agency.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: The Access to Information Act does not apply to some Crown corporations, including the CBC. Is it the same for agencies?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: It's subject to access to information.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Just for the information of members and the minister, the bells you're hearing are not for a vote; it's a quorum call.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'd first like to start by thanking the minister for coming in today. As Madame Tremblay said, it was a very clear and concise presentation.

However, I have a couple of questions for clarification. The witnesses who came before you today asked us this question, and I'd like to ask it of you: will the agency have real autonomy or will its main purpose be to create new avenues for contracting out and reducing staff?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: No, the reason for the agency being developed is to provide us with a structure that's going to allow us to carry out those important public policy mandates.

We went through a period of downsizing in this portfolio. We don't need an agency to do that. That's not what this agency is about.

In terms of autonomy, it will have a great deal of operational autonomy, but I want to make something crystal clear: it's going to be publicly accountable through the parliamentary process. I believe that's what Canadians want to see. They don't want our parks privatized or commercialized. This is a public agency, and that's what it shall remain.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The other part of their concern was whether you would accept the request of PIPS or PSAC that this would be guided by the Canada Labour Code or by the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The legislation, as it exists now, makes it half in and half out. I would just like to get your opinion there.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Well, we're trying to find the right balance here. The balance I'm trying to find is to ensure that I have the flexibility to create an HR regime that makes sense for parks. That's what we're trying to do on the one side. I think section 2 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act allows us to do that.

I'm also making sure, though, that we have a system in place that's going to protect our employees. I believe that we've done that, because we're going to work with the unions and our employees to find the third-party review process. That's important. We're not doing that arbitrarily. We're working with them and we will have a third-party review process. We have in fact worked with them to establish those guiding personnel principles, and they in fact have agreement with the unions right now.

Third, we established a process by which it can go to us as parliamentarians in case it goes off the rails.

So I think we've found the balance to achieve both of those things under section 2 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

Mr. Mark Muise: This is going back to a comment my colleague from the Reform Party made about the name of the agency. Many of the witnesses who came forward said that the name is almost an icon. It seems like an abbreviated form of what it is. Parks Canada is very short and sweet. People know what it means. It's almost like a comfortable glove that fits well. Everyone knows that “Canada” is very prominent in the name.

• 1205

I'll go to my last question, which has something to do with this. How flexible will the government be with respect to amendments? It's Madame Tremblay's question, but maybe asked slightly differently. Will the recommendations of this committee meet with approval once Bill C-29 goes back to the House?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: As parliamentarians we all learn that we should never speculate. I won't speculate on what my response would be to any particular amendment, other than to say clearly it is the prerogative of this committee to move whatever amendment it so wishes. I'm never going to question the prerogative of this committee to do that. If this committee presents amendments, I have an obligation to review those amendments. That's my role.

One of the reasons I'm here is to try to give you my thought process from what has been here. Hopefully you'll evaluate that along with the other testimony you've heard. I'll have to see what it is, what in fact you suggest if you decide you want to suggest a change by way of amendment.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's not to say I don't have any questions.

[Translation]

That is not true. I have seven questions, Mr. Chairman, and here is the first one.

[English]

Mr. Minister, does the government plan to introduce any amendments to this legislation at this stage?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I believe there are some technical amendments. I know there were a couple of instances in our review where we found the translation has not been accurate; the French version and the English version are not saying exactly the same thing. I think there are a couple of those that we want to bring forward. There are a couple of other technical—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But there's nothing substantial.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Nothing substantive, no.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Secondly, Treasury Board will no longer be the employer. That's part of the greater flexibility and so forth. How do we reconcile that with the fact that it will still be determining the negotiating mandate?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I don't know if I would use the phraseology “determining”. They will have a significant portion of formulating that, but quite frankly, in as much as the agency—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Excuse me. Clause 15 reads:

Notwithstanding section 56 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Chief Executive Officer may, in accordance with the negotiating mandate approved by the President of the Treasury Board, enter into a collective agreement with the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit composed of employees that is applicable to employees in that bargaining unit.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I think there's a difference between approving it and formulating it. The bargaining position would be formulated by the agency. It will need to get the approval of Treasury Board, and I think that's appropriate since the dollars that are going to be spent are going to be public dollars. In our system Treasury Board has to be a part of the process of spending those dollars.

I'm not trying to split hairs here. It isn't going to be a case where the President of the Treasury Board in conjunction with his or her officials simply comes to the head of the agency and says this is the way it is. The head of the agency will say, based on my best understanding of my needs and my organization, this is what I suggest should be our mandate. I suspect there may be a little bit of negotiation that takes place and they will come up with a solution.

You're quite right; at the end of the day if the Treasury Board president wants to say this is what it shall be, since we are a public body and since Treasury Board does those things under our system, yes. But the suggestion and the formulation will come from the head of the agency.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Clause 13 has been chosen as somewhat problematic in that the argument made by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and especially by the Public Institute of Professional Public Servants.... The one I've asked repeatedly...clause 13 essentially eliminates authority. It eliminates the Public Service Employment Act, which has everything to do with staffing, so that once the transition period is over essentially the protections that are in the Public Service Employment Act no longer apply.

• 1210

It eliminates the Financial Administration Act and section 11(2). Somewhere in this sea of paper I have the list of all the things that covers.

It includes the Public Service Staff Relations Act, certain sections of which in turn eliminate...and precludes bargaining in the whole area of collective bargaining. I guess it also doesn't apply the Canada Labour Code.

The question I put is, which code will apply?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: From my understanding—correct me if I'm wrong—you're going to be organized under either the Public Service Staff Relations Act or the Canada Labour Code. In this case, we've chosen to be organized under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, section 2. If you're under that act, you're not under the Canada Labour Code, and vice versa. It's an either/or situation; it's not that we've organized one way and not given you this.

That's different in terms of the Public Service Employment Act, which is something that will no longer apply. But there is something to replace that, which is the values and principles being established for the agency.

Rather than—and this is one of the comments I made at the beginning—trying to fit ourselves into the overall public service, we are going to create something specifically for parks. We're not simply doing away with the protection of that act; we're replacing it with something different. That's where we've had the union and the employees and management come together. They've actually agreed to what they want to replace the Employment Act—that is, our values and principles. The union has agreed to what's in there. The employees have agreed to what's in there. We've agreed as management to what's in there.

On top of that, as a safeguard we've ensured that this is going to have to go to Parliament every five years for review. So although that act will no longer apply because they're under section 2 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, there is something to replace it.

Not only is there something to replace it, but that replacement also has been developed in full consultation with the partners, and we have something that.... We have a fall-back or oversight position through Parliament.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What is that “something”?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: That something is that every five years—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, the something that's been negotiated.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: A set of values and principles.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Where is it?

Mr. Tom Lee: We can release it.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Sure.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Why wouldn't it be included in here?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: At the time we began this process, negotiations were ongoing. Those negotiations are coming to fruition.

I understand many of the parties who were part of those negotiations were your previous witnesses as well.

At any rate, that's not a problem. It will be a public document, obviously, because we have to table it in Parliament.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Might that be a substantial amendment?

Mr. Tom Lee: I want to think a minute—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, no. I'll go to my next question.

Mr. Minister, you started your presentation by saying we're entering “a new era” for Parks Canada. We've had a lot of people come here and tell us about the name. Some people wanted to add to it, but generally speaking, the message that's come out the most frequently, and apparently mostly from employees of Parks Canada, is that they'd like to retain the name Parks Canada.

The other argument is a commercial one, if you will, in that it takes a long time to have a name recognized. Apparently, Parks Canada now has that recognition factor. The argument that's been put forward is, why reinvent the wheel? If we have a name that is catchy, that people like, that people recognize, why not call it the Parks Canada Agency?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Let me reiterate—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I've heard these, so if you're not prepared to change, I'll leave it at that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Okay.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I think—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm not done, but—

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, you want to interject.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, if I can.

I think that's the crux of the whole thing. It's a saleable name. By the time another one has the recognition that one has....

So I have to agree with all the comments you've made, Mr. Bélanger, and Madame Tremblay, and I guess—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Don't put me in an untenable position here.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mark Muise: Maybe there was some of that too.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, may I go on?

• 1215

[English]

In paragraph (e) of the preamble, there is this reference:

to commemorate places, people and events of national historic significance, including those before European settlement,

and that sort of grates with some people. Perhaps we want to consider an amendment, especially in view of the presentation we had from the people from Manitoba—I'm sorry if I mispronounce this name—the Keeseekoowenin.

They even suggested that we go a little further, that we perhaps add something in the preamble, the mandate or somewhere in the operating structure, if you will, a wish—that's all they wanted, a wish—that we will be, and I will quote them:

appropriately incorporating neighbouring aboriginal peoples in the operation of national parks to the highest possible degree.

Maybe “in the operation” is not suitable, and I'd understand that, but perhaps incorporating them in the consultations is, to reflect a desire that we saw from them, a real and genuine desire to be involved. I would hope that we could see our way to somehow massaging that into the act.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Let me answer that on a couple of points.

On the wording that you specifically refer to, the intent is to achieve something that I think the first nations want, and that is to make sure we recognize when we go around designating historic sites that they're not simply forts and all European settlement types of items, that there are other areas.

For instance, up in NWT we've just recognized two sacred grounds of the Sahtu Dene. That's the type of thing.

If there is wording other than “before European settlement” that would make it clear that we intend to recognize historic sites or historic events or people of historical significance prior to European settlement, that's fine.

As to the broader issue—because you've really addressed a broader issue as well—the reality is, and it's not a great reality, I guess, that in the first part of this century we didn't do a very good job—and by “we”, I mean collectively—of including first nations and other aboriginal peoples in the decision-making process. Parks Canada was probably no different from many others.

If we look at the history, beginning in the 1970s, probably, we have tried to do a far better job of that. In fact, now when we manage our sites where we are being hosted, in essence, by aboriginal communities or by first nations, we try to include them in the management process. Indeed, when we look at establishing new parks, we include the aboriginal and first nations communities as individuals who have to be part of processing that.

Do we have more to do? Yes, we do.

In terms of doing it in a legislative way, it more appropriately belongs in the National Parks Act or in the national Historic Sites and Monuments Act. As the committee may know, some time in the not too distant future we hope to table some amendments to the National Parks Act.

I undertake on your behalf and on behalf of the committee to see if there is something in there that I should be proposing.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There must be something missing in the translation, because I didn't think that there was a proposal to establish an advisory committee. Mr. Minister, you were talking about an ad hoc advisory committee. Did I misunderstand you?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: No. I referred to the fact that we do have some ad hoc committees in our system right now, the Bow Valley study being one. What we are developing in here is a mandate on our part that once every two years we have to convene a national consultative process, and we would move it to different parts of the country.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can we be assured that employees will be invited to take part whenever the consultation process or the advisory committees are put in place?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Oh, absolutely. I would envision it as a broad range of Canadians, and that would include employees, stakeholders, unions, and the local communities.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: The broader it is, the better it is, I think.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Finally, coming back to the Official Languages Act. I did kind of give notice that I would be moving an amendment relating to that legislation.

• 1220

I do not accept your comment, Mr. Minister. For example, when Air Canada was privatized, the government of the day did include provisions in the legislation establishing the company to make sure that the Official Languages Act would apply to the airline. But maybe it was not enough because some Air Canada affiliates—

An hon. member: Air Alliance, among others.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: —seem to be exempt. I find it is a problem for me.

I am aware of the advice you received from the Department of Justice and everything else, but I do have some concerns because there will likely be a lot of contracting-out through this agency, in order to carry out some duties. It is totally legitimate and we have nothing against it, but it has to be perfectly clear, and the legislation should spell it out, that all contractors who will be serving the public for the agency will also have to comply with the Official Languages Act. Even if it is redundant... Excuse me, I was about to borrow an expression from the Cyniques "je m'en contre-saint-ciboirise", meaning I don't give a damn, but I won't do it.

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: I wonder what the interpreter said in English.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I don't know, but I sure would like to hear it.

Some hon. members: Ah, ah!

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It is important that our government gives a clear unambiguous message by requiring full compliance with the Official Languages Act. And omitting a provision or an amendment that would spell it out in the bill is not the way to go about it.

I would like to hear your comments, Mr. Minister.

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Let me comment on that. Let me make it clear that as the minister it's my intent to have the Official Languages Act apply to the Parks Canada agency. It's crystal clear. As to how we best do that, again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know. I have to depend on some advice.

One of the things that has been pointed out to me is that if we have one act that specifically refers to it and the other acts don't and it's supposed to apply to the other acts, what happens if somebody brings a challenge? What happens if someone says, “Well, it can't possibly apply to all of this other legislation because in this one legislation you refer to it specifically”? So I certainly don't want to take any action that would result in eroding it somewhere else, but again—

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: With all due respect, Mr. Minister, legal drafters are creative enough to include one more “notwithstanding” clause somewhere in the wording of the provision to specify that notwithstanding the fact that other similar legislations do not mention it, contractors will have to comply with the Official Languages Act. You know, you have to be creative and imaginative. When our government doesn't show the way, too often people will try to avoid compliance. Our duty here is to ensure that the Official Languages Act is fully complied with in our parks, because the public goes there and you have no choice but to ensure compliance.

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Okay. One of the suggestions, Mr. Bélanger, is to go to the preamble, where it says, “Whereas the government of Canada wishes to establish an Agency to provide quality services to visitors” and insert the phrase “in both official languages”, so it would read “to provide quality services in both official languages”.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's a start.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: Preambles are not to be constructed in law.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: As I say, I can see a hint of flexibility showing.

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Let me just—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I will ask my first question again.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Okay. But I want to make a comment.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Please.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Quite clearly, my goal is to make sure that the Official Languages Act applies to the operation of the agency, and I will undertake to consult with the justice department again and find the best way to make sure that happens and to make sure we do it in a way that doesn't have a counter-productive impact somewhere else.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: First question, and I hope the answer has changed: does the government plan to introduce any substantial amendments to this bill?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: If it requires an amendment on the Official Languages Act, I would certainly entertain that type of amendment.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Merci.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

• 1225

Mr. Mark Muise: I have just one other thing to follow up on what Mr. Bélanger mentioned earlier. Last week, we had people from the first nations. Again, I have difficulty pronouncing the name, but it was Keeseekoowenin.

They had mentioned—you referred to this—the 1930s, when there was not really a good working relationship. Then in the 1970s that relationship started getting better. Listening to those people last week, it was very difficult to believe that there was any amelioration from the 1930s, let alone the 1970s.

I don't mean to be derogatory in my comments, but I think that anyone who takes the time to write to a government, minister, or bureaucrat at the very least deserves an acknowledgement of that letter, and second, deserves an answer. I think we should never forget who we work for. We not only work for the people who visit our parks, if we're discussing parks, but we also work for the people affected by those parks.

It was stated in their presentation last week that they had written to Parks, but there was not even an acknowledgement of their letter, let alone an answer. Now there might be reasons for that, but I'd just like to hear your comments. Maybe I'll close with this comment on it. I think that regardless of who takes the time to write, we have to give at least common courtesy and answer people who take the time to ask something of us.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Muise, you're absolutely right, there are reasons for this, but none of them are acceptable. The answer should have gone long before it did.

I can say to you that I have now replied and I have made an offer to meet with them personally to deal with their issues.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you. That's excellent. I'm happy to see that.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms Suzanne Tremblay: Clause 17 provides for the principal office of the agency. Given the fact that you already have a lot of room within the department, would it be possible for the principal office to be in that same building or do you have to move to a different building?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: No, we don't intend to incur any increased administration costs. We're trying to stay where we are.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, before we go, I just wanted to bring up a point about the people we heard this morning from the two employee organizations. I know Mr. Lee wasn't there, but I know that several of your staff were here.

I just got the sense that Mr. McCarthy, who is part of the transition team, said that the consultations lately have been doing very well and that he was very appreciative. But it seemed to us, from the general tone, especially of the two leaders over there, Mr. Hindle and Mr. Chalk, that there was a lot of worry from the point of view of the employees as to their status and so forth. They made several recommendations in their briefs.

As we are going to be studying these clauses next week, it might be very interesting to know what your reaction is to these recommendations in relation to these consultations. These were not negotiations, as they made it quite clear in their review that no negotiations had taken place. They made a sort of point of underlining the difference between consultation and negotiation. It would be interesting from the point of view of members of the committee because this is going to arise. They made specific recommendations here. What are the views of your experts as to the feasibility of some of these things? Do you want to address it now? I take it that you might have seen those briefs, I don't know.

• 1230

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Just very briefly. I would have to examine it, and I'm quite prepared to examine them and provide comments by way of a letter or some other vehicle.

Let me just make a general comment about that. Working with our unions through this process has been a priority for us, and quite frankly it has worked reasonably well from our perspective and I suspect from their perspective as well. We are charting new territory here. The leadership of those organizations has a specific mandate to act in the best interests of their employees, and I recognize that mandate. We are turning new sod; we're finding a new way. We're willing to do it and have demonstrated that we're willing to do it with them, and we will continue to do it with them.

They're going to have concerns. I think that's natural. They have an important job to do in terms of ensuring that their employees are protected, and I respect that. I know I have directed my officials to continue to work closely with them to make sure we can arrive together at developing something that works for our employees and that works for all Canadians through the job of the agency. That's where we're trying to go. We've been going down the path together and we will continue to go down that path together.

On the specific issues they've raised, I will examine that. I will have my officials examine that and I'll provide input as appropriate.

The Chairman: I know time is short, and we certainly didn't have in mind anything in written form. We would like to have access to your specialists so at least we can get a reaction as to what the human resource experts from your ministry say in regard to the points. Some of them seem quite logical to us as they're brought up.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I have no problem with my officials providing answers to any specific questions you have about those briefs.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I knew I'd forgotten something and you've triggered it, Mr. Chairman.

In the brief from PIPS this morning they make a case that the Governor in Council use subsection 92(4) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act to issue an order that would essentially override an exclusion about referring adjudication for grievances. Apparently they said that such an order has now been issued for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency after some trials and tribulations. They strongly recommend that such an order be issued, except that's not part of the five recommendations at the end, which leaves one to wonder. Has that matter come up? Has it been considered or will it be?

Mr. Tom Lee: It has not, and I've not had a chance to look at it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Would you therefore address that one as well, please?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: We will.

There was one question I didn't answer. It was about the values and principles and how they're published. Clause 16 requires the chief executive officer to establish a charter that includes these values and that the charter established under subclause 16(1) be made available to the public. So it's legislatively required that it become public.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do we have it now?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Let me see what kind of position we're in and the legal perspective on that.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your very clear exposé of what you intend to do through the bill. Mr. Lee, thank you for appearing as well. We appreciate your comments and your forthright answers. We'll proceed next week with clause-by-clause, and we hope the work will go smoothly. We really appreciate your presence here. Thank you.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Thank you, and thanks to all committee members.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.