Bill C-25 (Historical)

Public Service Modernization Act

An Act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That on Bill C-25, the amendment for second reading be deemed to have been withdrawn, the motion for second reading deemed adopted, and the bill referred to the appropriate standing committee.

Public Service Modernization Act

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak on Bill C-25. The whole subject of employer-employee relationships and employer-employee relations has been an interest of mine for a great number of years.

I have indicated on numerous occasions that for 27 years I taught at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology in mathematics and computing. For four years before that, when I was just a kid, I taught high school. Believe it or not, in both of those environments I was involved with employer-employee relationships in a very real way.

I was always astounded when I first graduated from university. I really was just a kid. I was 22 years old, I had two degrees and away I went into the work world. I graduated from the University of Saskatchewan with great pride and unfortunately could not get a job in Saskatchewan. When Alberta beckoned and offered me a job, saying that it had never yet been disappointed in a graduate from the University of Saskatchewan, I took the job.

Suddenly, I was the math department in a small rural high school in Alberta. I was just a young person, 22 years old, offering in-service to the other teachers because we were going through the years of new math. The reason I bring this in that it all ties together. As a result of doing this in-service work, I got to know many teachers throughout the whole county. At one of the annual meetings of the Alberta Teachers' Association local there, I suddenly was elected, just this young fellow from Saskatchewan, to be the president of the ATA local. One might call it a teachers' union. We always called it a professional association.

It was a very interesting experience, because as soon as one has the opportunity to work representing other people one immediately finds ways of bringing together people who are far apart. I found it an incredibly valuable experience, because 95% to 99% of relationships between employers and employees are healthy and good and work fine, but there is always that 1% to 5% where a conflict develops for one reason or another. How do we reconcile that? How do we bring those people together?

Of course it becomes a real mixture of psychology and sociology and a whole bunch of other things, and often very little mathematics, although I did apply some mathematics to it. I discovered that if there are two people, there is only one relationship between the two of them. If there are three people, there are three relationships. If I had a way of drawing a diagram, there are person A and person B, so there is that one, persons B and C, and persons A and B, so there are three relationships. That grows geometrically as the number of people increases. For example, if there are 16 people there are 120 relationship pairs.

When we have thousands of people in a civil service, like we have in Canada, we cannot expect that there would not occasionally be frictions between the personalities, so employer-employee relationships and inter-employee relationships become very important. One discovery I made early on when I was a young kid teaching high school math and involved in the ATA was that we have to learn to co-operate. One has to forgive. There has to be an attitude of acceptance and understanding. There has to be a culture like this one: I like my job, I like the people I work with, what I am doing is worthwhile, it is valued by my employer, and it is valued by my clients, whoever they are.

In the civil service, these clients are usually citizens of our country. Many of our civil servants work with citizens of other countries. All of us, regardless of our position, even members of Parliament, have to work on those interpersonal relationships.

When the President of the Treasury Board brings forward Bill C-25 and says that the government is going to modernize the public service, I would like to emphasize that underlying this is the foundation of value for each individual who works in the public service.

I also became involved in this when I went to the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. Lo and behold, there were about 750 professional staff members there who honoured me by electing me as their first president of the academic staff association at NAIT. Until that time, we had been forced members of AUPE, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, whether we wanted to be or not. Even then, before I was the president of the staff association, I was elected president of branch 38 of AUPE. I had an opportunity there, and later as the staff association president in taking part in the formation of our new staff association, to build on the important foundations I discovered earlier in my life. It was an interesting experience.

There is one thing I want to comment on. Bill C-25 includes the whole subject of arbitration and conciliation and methods of solving disputes. I would like to advise the President of the Treasury Board and all Liberal members here today, the huge crowd of them, that they need to do this right.

I will share a personal experience. When I was the president of the staff association, for our very first contract we put our heads together and asked whether we wanted the right to strike. A number of members said no. They felt that the only time members need the right to strike is when a situation cannot be solved in any other way. So we reasoned. If we have an argument with our neighbour about where a fence should be, we have a court system and a legal system in which that can be arbitrated. It can be determined. We do not have to picket in front of our neighbour's house stating he is being unfair because his trees are on our land or whatever the problem is. That is not how to solve these types of situations. We find out where the boundary is and we have to live with the decision. That is true in every area of conflict. There is a mechanism or there are developing mechanisms in our country to solve those conflicts, through hearings, through arbitration, through conciliation and whatnot.

We argued that for ourselves the right to strike was a means to an end, not an end in itself. We bargained away in our very first contract on a clause which was set up so that it would be perpetual in subsequent contracts. Both parties had to agree if the clause were to be removed. Once the clause was in there, unless both parties agreed to remove it, it would stay in there perpetually, which is a good way of putting it. We put into that clause a whole sequence of arbitrations and mediators and everything, a whole dispute resolution mechanism so that disputes could be properly solved. It worked really fine.

Now I am going to take a slam at the provincial government of Alberta. It worked really fine until those guys in the government, and I am talking now as an employee, those guys in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, passed a rule which stated that in cases of arbitration, the arbitrator must take into account government policy.

That seemed like a really innocuous little statement, but it threw a pile of sand into the smooth working gears of our relationship. After that, when it came time to negotiate a new round of salary agreements or whatever the government would simply, in advance of that, make a public announcement. This was when inflation was 8% to 10% per year. The government would say that its policy that year was that no government employee shall have a raise increase exceeding 2%.

That blew us out of the water. It made it very unfair because it said we could not bargain fairly. If we could not come to an agreement we could go to arbitration because we had binding arbitration. If binding arbitration was there the government had already passed a rule that we had to take into account government policy and it had declared the policy was 2%. That was the end of the show.

The House can see how frustrated we were. It landed up that we were there in the boxing ring and the person with whom we were boxing was also the referee. It made it very unfair.

My advice to that vast group of Liberals who would impose this legislation is to ensure that where there is arbitration and where there is conciliation that it be kept fair. If the Liberals do not, they will cause unrest in the civil service which they do not want.

That is a very important principle. I am arguing a principle, not specifically the wording of the bill. I expect the committee will look after that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just before we were interrupted by the quorum call, I was making the point that we should look at Bill C-25 in full light of the fact that the 1990s was a terrible decade for our public service employees.

There were seven or eight years of wage freezes with zero per cent increases. There was total devastation with program review where one-third of civil servants were laid off. Many were demoralized by job cutbacks because even though the civil service was reduced by one-third, the amount of work did not change. Employees were struggling with how to give service to the public with fewer resources and fewer people to do the job.

The ultimate insult was when the former President of the Treasury Board took the entire $30 billion surplus out of the employee pension plan without so much as a by your leave, with no negotiations, without even considering the fact that a surplus in a pension plan is the property of the employees. A pension plan should be viewed as wages being held in trust until such time as they are needed. When that pension plan went into surplus, the entire surplus of $30 billion was taken out of the employees' pension plan.

We can understand how morale reached a new all time low during the 1990s. It is in that context there is some reservation and hesitation on the part of public service employees as they look at this new proposal. Frankly, the level of trust suffered during that decade.

I have pointed out before that anybody who has been in the public service for a long time has lived through virtually every type of scientific management gizmo. Every type of California pop psychology one can imagine has been foisted on public service employees, from total quality management and William Deming, to quality work circles, to team concept and PS 2000. All of these ideas were supposed to do something about the terrible morale problem and the subsequent lack of attachment I suppose that many employees felt to their jobs.

The Fryer study identified many issues that would actually improve and lead to improved job satisfaction and ergo, improved productivity and a sense of well-being within the workplace. I am pleased to see that Bill C-25 incorporates some of the recommendations of the Fryer report.

I can serve notice to the minister that during the committee hearings we will be recommending further amendments that would further implement other issues raised by the study that have not found their way into the legislation. It is another reason we were optimistic that we could move the bill out of the House of Commons into committee where this meaningful work would begin.

Human resources and labour relations are always difficult issues. They are very complex. They are multifaceted in a sense. They are even more complex in the public sector because labour relations deal with the imbalance in the historical relationship between employers and employees. That imbalance is accentuated when the employer is also the legislator. I say that only to preface my remarks that the government, and previous governments, Tory governments as well, have exercised their legislative power over their employees far too readily and far too often. It has become the norm.

A specific example is back to work legislation. It has become the norm in the labour relations regime in the public sector that as soon as people exercise their right to strike or their right to withhold services, they can almost guarantee that the government is already printing back to work legislation to bring to the House of Commons.

In the few years I have been here as a member of Parliament I believe there have been five separate occasions when the government has ordered public service employees back to work, whether it was in the post office or in the public sector at large.

My argument and the reason I raise this, and I am serving notice that we will be raising this at the committee level as well, is that free collective bargaining does not work if we are holding back the power for employees to use the only tool they have to apply pressure to the employer, which is the right to withhold their services. When we deny employees that right, we are bastardizing the whole concept of free collective bargaining.

In 1966, when the public service employees won the right to free collective bargaining, it was an error, an omission, that a labour relations regime was not factored in, that a clear, concise and concrete labour management regime was not introduced as well. Instead, labour relations have been dealt with in an ad hoc, hodgepodge fashion. The one thing I welcome in the bill is that it does contemplate clarifying the relationship between employees and employers and, if I can take the minister at her word, reintroducing an element of fairness to the system by using a bipartite approach. Labour and management can sit down at the table as equal partners in a new national council concept and deal with the real issues of, from our point of view, job satisfaction, and, from their point of view, productivity and yardsticks to measure progress. That in itself is a move forward.

I have mentioned this before and I will again. It may be that because the minister's experience is from the Province of Quebec that she is open to this type of more progressive labour-management relationship, whereas those of us in western Canada have to still suffer through a situation where unions are always fighting for recognition. Not truly welcome at the table, they have to elbow their way to the table. Even then they are allowed at the table in a very reluctant way. It is an adversarial situation before the conversation even begins.

The European model is one of a more tripartite approach, where unions are recognized as a key element of civil society. I believe that if this attitude, this mentality, were transferred or moved into the federal public service, it might lead to real progress in the relationship that we see with the federal government and its employees.

I will not go into detail on the bill at this time because I still have some hope that we may get co-operation from all the parties in the House, that with one more speaker taking us to the end of the day we can conclude debate on the bill and get it to committee so we can hear from the 16 bargaining units affected by the bill. That will be the opportunity for us to make meaningful amendments to the bill and hopefully see it through to its logical conclusion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate on Bill C-25, an act to modernize the public service. I will keep my remarks brief because we are optimistic that by the end of the day we may be able to forward this bill on to the committee where the important work shall begin in doing a comprehensive review and analysis of the bill.

Comprehensive is the operative word because it is a huge piece of legislation. It is a very ambitious piece of legislation undertaken by the President of the Treasury Board. There is optimism in the labour community and among public sector employees that we are looking at meaningful change that will go beyond legislative change, but may, if successful, actually change the culture of the public service. That would be something we would all celebrate.

As is often the case, perhaps the best quote with regard to this new bill comes from Hugh Winsor. In the Globe and Mail he pointed out that as far as government goes, the less one intends to do about something, the more one has to study it. It is the rule of inverse proportionality.

I do not know if other members have mentioned this, but we note that the role of civil servants has been the subject of no fewer than 37 indepth studies in the last 40 years. Many of those studies made broad, sweeping recommendations. Many were entered into with the same optimism that I express today and none of them have really resulted in comprehensive changes in the way we do business as a public service.

The reason there is some room for optimism this time around is that we are starting with legislative change. We are attempting to fix the structural, skeletal aspect of the problems and then we can deal with the minutiae later on. That is why on the face of it the NDP caucus welcomes this undertaking. We commit that we will throw ourselves into it with all the attention it deserves.

I somewhat regret that instead of debating the bill I find myself forced to debate the amendment that was put forward, that the bill should be withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

That amendment would contemplate throwing out all the work that has been done to date. This would include the comprehensive 18 month study, the Fryer report. It would include the work of the task force led by deputy minister Ran Quail. Essentially it would bring up the matter of how to amend public service legislation at the newly formed committee on government operations and estimates.

I strongly suspect that the proposed amendment has more to do with political mischief than any sincere interest in addressing the copious problems that face our public sector employees. I am critical, as I say, that I am in a position now that my comments have to be taken in the context of debating a hoist motion rather than the bill which we had hoped would make meaningful amendments.

Having said that, let me speak to the importance of amending public service legislation. We should frame this in the context that the 1990s were a terrible decade for our public sector. There were seven years of wage freezes. Civil servants had to live through the madness of program review, which resulted in--

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-25, the public service modernization act.

The bill is a good first attempt at overhauling the way the public service functions. By the government's own admission over the past few decades the public service has remained structurally and functionally a top down organization. It is somewhat stiff in its functioning, a lumbering giant that often requires a department to go through a maze of several months of paperwork and meetings in order to hire an ordinary file clerk.

Bill C-25 provides for more flexibility in staffing and in managing people. Managers, within certain limits, will have more power over hiring and who they hire, just like out in the real world. Applicants who feel they have been shortchanged in the staffing process will be given access to redress under the public service staffing tribunal.

The bill also stresses the need for a cooperative approach to labour-management relations. The intent is to make employees part and parcel of the process of running the workplace. Nobody really knows how to do a job like those who do it every day. If the intent of the bill holds true, we should have happier federal workplaces.

The bill provides for the overhaul and consolidation of the staff training and development process of the federal public service. It more clearly delineates the role of key players in the human resources area, in Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and the various deputy ministers and their equivalents.

Many of the changes are long overdue improvements to the nation's public service. If carried out properly they could lead to a much happier, less strike prone and more productive public service.

Over the past 20 years the nature of work has changed. Knowledge simply flows in the computer age. We all know more and we all seem to do more. Whoever said computers would make life easier? Computers are fast and because of their importance in our lives, the pace of life has actually speeded up; it has become more efficient maybe, but it has definitely speeded up. The public service has not kept pace with the absolutely frantic pace of the private sector in the modern world.

Many public servants today are about to retire. They are baby boomers. We are told that 7,000 new people are needed every year just to keep pace with the retirements. A hiring process that lumbers on for months often sees the best and brightest applicants scooped up by the private sector. When we add to that a looming shortage of skilled workers in all sectors as the baby boomers move on, the public service will be very hard pressed to come up with the good workers it will need. If there is a criticism of the government, it is that it has taken this long to act on the reality of the looming skills shortage in all sectors of the economy.

As for the bill, it appears to be very thorough and detailed indeed. The devil is in the details as they say. I am sure that as we speak, lawyers and labour leaders are combing through the fine print. If there are major problems, I am sure we will be hearing from the various stakeholders in the system. No doubt there will be a more detailed analysis of the bill done in committee.

It is important that managers have a greater say in the hiring process. After all, the people being hired are people they will have to work with every single day. As an employee and an employer, I have always seen the wisdom in having a harmonious productive workplace.

I recently read an article, and I am sure I was not the only one as it was quite a public article, that referred to a study on the issue of who did the best hiring, the manager or the technocrat from the human resources section. The study found that while both entities could assess applicants on their level of technical competence, the manager did a much better job of picking an employee who also fit into the organization. Simply put, I guess personality does count and it counts a great deal.

This extra power on the part of managers has to be matched with a strong grievance procedure. Managers have to be required to account for their decisions on hiring. Hiring people because of political pressure is forbidden. Hiring friends who do not meet the basic qualifications is not allowed. The government, as we are all aware, has taken care of a lot of its political friends, so let us not allow the system to get into bureaucratic patronage as well. If such people do apply and do win a post, there must be a process for redress. Part 5 outlines the process. Again, on this front, the devil is in the details and in the importance the government actually places on real reform. No doubt it will be given full scrutiny in committee.

One aspect of the bill I want to make particular reference to, and I am pleased the minister is here today, is section 34 of part 2 regarding appointments. It says that the Public Service Commission may determine an area of selection by establishing geographic, organizational or occupational criteria. This is a part of the bill that can accommodate affirmative action hiring, I am aware of that.

I am sure the minister is aware of the efforts made by my colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, with respect to that particular provision. He questioned the Minister of Transport on it yesterday in the House. The minister expressly made the comment that these provisions do not exist. If they do not exist, what are they actually doing in the new bill in section 34, part 2?

I am sure the minister is aware as well that until recently, in Atlantic Canada especially, we were faced with federal job advertisements requiring applicants to be from certain geographic areas. In Newfoundland, for example, a job opening in St. John's might be restricted to applicants from the Avalon peninsula. People who lived in Gander or Labrador City could not apply. Also, many jobs in central Canada were offered only to applicants from restricted geographic areas.

There are two sides to the issue. Some people have said to me in my own constituency that we have so few federal job openings, how would they ever compete if 30 million other Canadians were free to apply? That was one side of the issue. The other side is that there are so many more job openings in central Canada and other places that they wish they could apply. There are two sides to the issue. I happen to be of the opinion that all the jobs should be wide open to people from all over Canada. Whether they come from Newfoundland or some other part of Atlantic Canada, or British Columbia, they should be free to apply.

I certainly hope the minister will make reference to section 34, part 2 when she speaks. On page 125 of the bill it is stated:

For purposes of eligibility in any appointment process, other than an incumbent-based process, the Commission may determine an area of selection by establishing geographic, organizational or occupational criteria or by establishing, as a criterion, belonging to any of the designated groups--

Unless I am interpreting it incorrectly, and that is entirely possible, the very problem the member for Cumberland—Colchester was talking about yesterday is still in the bill even though the Minister of Transport indicated when he answered the question in the House yesterday that it was not in the bill. I certainly hope the minister will address that particular issue because it seems to me to be discriminatory in a way, especially as it pertains to areas that do not have a lot of jobs.

At the time of course I favoured the view of my colleague, and I still favour that view, that in opening up the competition, everyone would be able to apply, and that is the fairest way to do it.

The intent of the bill is commendable. I recommend that it be sent to committee for detailed study and analysis. Hopefully we will correct some of these shortcomings in the bill when it gets to that point.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, whenever we start talking about something important, we get cut off.

So, back to the bill. I believe that when we study a bill we also have the opportunity to pass on certain messages. I do not see the problem with the Canadian Alliance, but we all have our own temperaments and characters.

I would like to get to the substance of the bill and establish some background. After all, it is a very large bill. You have seen how many pages it has and it affects many other Canadian statutes. We have to look at what impact this will have.

Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act—as I said earlier—would replace the former bill that dates back 35 years. The current policy became obsolete a very long time ago and it was high time to make the appropriate changes.

This bill is the result of numerous reports and studies, more than thirty in total. Extensive background work was done to determine the need to renew how recruitment and staffing are handled in the public service.

These reports and studies all found that there has to be a change in culture in the public service. This is the 21st century, and we have to modernize and make dramatic changes because things certainly are not what they were 35 years ago.

The President of the Treasury Board submitted her bill to the House on February 6, 2003. The objectives of this bill are to add the concept of merit, implement a more flexible staffing system, improve labour-management relations, and incorporate learning and development activities for employees in the public service.

With this bill, the Treasury Board believes it will be able to handle the constant reduction in the work force and the increased competition in the labour market. It is clear that the public service has to be competitive too. People should be just as productive as in the private sector. We agree with this point of view.

The government also intends to deal with the demographic problem in the public service. With this bill, it thinks it will be able to resolve the shortcomings relating to age and representativeness. It is obvious that the population is greying, in all of Canada and in Quebec, and this is something we have to face up to. People may retire far later than they used to, they may keep working longer. People are living longer than they used to, so all these situations have to be adapted to. That is what this bill is attempting to do.

Then there is the matter of the skills shortage. The government identifies this as being critical. The final intent of this bill is to improve the public's perception of the public service, and this is very important. Often people have a very negative perception of the public service, and this must be turned around.

No one is expecting miracles, of course. There will be an attempt to find solutions that will work in the medium and long term. That will be the goal. The cultural change will have to focus particularly on the last aspect I mentioned.

This is a pretty thick bill, one that is imposing and important, since its intent is to bring about change not only to the technical aspects of the administration of the public service, but also the entire approach to it, hence the review and transformation of the culture of the public service. The approach taken must be structured and painstaking, if real changes are to be made, ones with real impact.

The purpose of the analysis that follows is to consider all the pros and cons of each provision according to its outcome.

As I have said, we are in favour of the bill in principle. It is, however, obvious that we shall attempt to bring in some major changes to correct what we consider its shortcomings. There are some elements we feel are not solid enough and might benefit from a some additions and clarifications.

As I said, our comments are meant as constructive criticism. I hope they will be well received in committee. I hope that my colleagues from all of the parties will provide constructive criticism on this matter.

There are flaws, including the issue of psychological and sexual harassment. This morning, an expert from the CSN, who conducted a study on this issue, sent me the results of a survey recently released indicating that 21% of employees in Canada's public service have said that they have been subject to harassment. That is a lot of people. I know the minister is very sensitive to this issue.

We should be more specific about this in the bill, because it is not specific enough right now. That is what representatives of certain unions are saying. This should be looked at and changes should be made to this effect.

Part 1 of the bill deals with the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The main purpose of this first part is to improve management-union relations, by establishing ongoing dialogue. In order to do so, the bill provides for better mediation to improve collective bargaining. The goal is to eliminate, or at least reduce, barriers to collective bargaining.

Finally, the bill establishes parameters to better manage conflict. Obviously, conflict management is not easy. It requires tools. There will now be experts to help. There are people who specialize in this area. It is important to know how to use their services wisely. The bill contains good provisions in this regard.

Existing provisions are maintained. The bill includes a description of management rights, the choice of process for dispute resolution and the administration of the act by an independent organization.

Part 1 is divided into 14 sections. It is fairly lengthy. The first section deals with labour relations. It deals with employee freedoms, but not with protecting employees in the case of whistle blowers.

We plan to propose an amendment to this effect. It is very important to protect employees who blow the whistle, and the bill does not contain such protection.

It seems unconscionable to us that public servants would only be protected by an internal policy. There needs to be real protection and we will present an amendment to this effect.

The 14 sections in part 1 deal with the workplace consultation committee and the Public Service Labour Relations Board, among others. Topics such as bargaining, essential services and strike votes are discussed.

Part 2 deals with grievances. Then, occupational health and safety is addressed. The last part contains general provisions. I am trying to outline, for the benefit of those of my constituents who are listening, how the bill is structured. I am also doing so for those who have an interest in the matter and will probably want to appear before the committee.

Division 3 in part 1 deals with consultation committees and co-development of workplace improvements. Each department will now be required to establish a labour-management consultation committee. This is great news. Very often, conflicts are best resolved at that level, and much quicker as well.

These committees will be established by the deputy head in consultation with the bargaining agents, and will provide a forum where all labour relations issues can be discussed. There is nothing more important than to listen to the employees. They are the ones doing the work, and using the equipment, on a day-to-day basis, eight hours a day. It is important to listen to them and to consult them. This way, simple solutions can often be found to complex problems which, if left to worsen, could end up in employees leaving. There are employees getting ill and problematic situations getting worse. I find this opportunity provided for in the bill most interesting.

The deputy head and the bargaining agents, in consultation, will have the power to make changes to improve the workplace in the context of actions by the National Joint Council or any other appropriate forum.

The bill defines this committee as the arena for all consultation between the parties on workplace issues and their participation in the identification of problems in the workplace and the development of solutions, with a view to adopting the appropriate solutions.

The Public Service Staff Relations Board's mandate is to provide arbitration services and mediation services. Through mediation, the parties could receive advice from a mediator during collective bargaining or grievance settlements.

We know that often it is important to have mediators who are objective, but who can make a rather significant contribution. This usually helps to resolve the conflict much sooner or to complete the negotiation much faster, which means agreements are also signed much sooner.

The Board's mandate is also to provide compensation analysis and research services.

Let us move on to bargaining rights and the dispute resolution system. The bill upholds the current dispute resolution system. There will be some exclusions. Management positions or positions of trust are part of these exclusions, except with regard to Department of Justice lawyers.

We will have to determine in committee whether people want to make improvements or changes to this. We will consult with union and labour groups and review the information they provide.

There are essential services. The government defines essential services as anything that is necessary for public safety. The employer has the exclusive right to determine the level at which an essential service is to be provided, the extent to which and the frequency with which the service is to be provided. Once the level is established, there will be an agreement on the essential services, specifying the types and number of positions required to provide said services. In an emergency, the agreement will be suspended or modified. The right to strike takes effect only 30 days after the agreement has been reached.

There is also arbitration. The mandate of the arbitration boards will be to take into account the needs related to the positions, namely to attract people with the necessary skills, offer compensation similar to comparable positions in the private sector, while maintaining the appropriate classification level.

Paragraph 148 ( e ) stipulates that:

the arbitration board must take into account the following factors, in addition to any other factors that it considers relevant:

(e) the state of the Canadian economy and the Government of Canada's fiscal circumstances.

Conciliation is also an extremely important part of the bill. This will be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Board members will be appointed by the minister from a list provided by the employer and the bargaining agents. Both parties will select the names on the list.

The Public Service Labour Relations Board and the arbitration board will use the same evaluation factors: individuals with the necessary skills and a rate of pay comparable to private sector rates for the appropriate classification.

I have gone over part I in detail. Part II of the bill deals with grievances.

From now on, deputy heads must have mechanisms for resolving disputes. These mechanisms remain, however, informal ones, and employees must be informed of them.

Employees will be able to pursue disputes relating to discrimination, except in relation to pay equity. Employees can also submit grievances concerning the interpretation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. If a dispute arises, the Canadian Human Rights Commission must be notified and will have full discretion to make representations.

I see that the clock is ticking. I will not read you the whole thing, but this is an extremely important part of the bill.

Part III concerns occupational health and safety, which comes under part II of the Canada Labour Code. This code was revised a few years ago. Since work on reforming this legislation has been going on for many years, provisions relating to occupational health and safety legislation have been significantly updated and improved.

Part IV contains general provisions. It is now illegal to disclose notes or draft orders by members of the board, adjudicators, mediators, or public interest commissions, or by any individual participating in complaint resolution. This principle has its corollary in the enforcement of mediation agreements in Quebec.

Finally, there will be a review after seven years.

I will not be able to finish reading my document, because my time is getting short, and I know that my colleagues in the NDP and Conservative Party also want to have a chance to speak. We will have an opportunity to discuss this in committee, anyway.

I wanted to touch on the weaknesses of the bill, because there is one in particular that I consider important. Harassment is a very important point. I have just heard from a CSN member who will be appearing as a witness on behalf of that union on this issue.

A survey of 95,000 public servants—a lot of people—last December reported that one public servant in five had been the victim of harassment in the workplace. Yet there is nothing in this bill to protect public servants from the harassment reported by so many of them.

The minister needs to ensure that there is a very precise definition of harassment. Harassment is not necessarily sexual, it can also be psychological, and this is harder to detect in a company. So imagine how much harder it is to detect in a public service of 95,000 people. Specialists would be required.

When a person is a victim of harassment, he or she does not dare to speak up. The bill needs to provide the necessary tools for doing so. It will perhaps make it possible for resource persons to be made available to provide services to workers who feel they are victims of psychological or sexual harassment.

It is important to point out that, if this problem—which is said to affect 21% of the public service—can be solved, the atmosphere in the workplace will be far more satisfactory. When we feel there is no pressure at work, it is far more pleasant to perform our duties to the best of our abilities.

Protection of whistle blowers is also lacking, as I have already said. The new bill has no provision to protect whistle blowers, who alert the media to the perceived misconduct of their superiors.

With respect to the protection of the law, an independent integrity commissioner would be appointed to deal with these situations. But that is not enough, and we will be putting amendments forward.

Then there is the whole matter of recruiting and staffing. Staffing and the merit principle are at the heart of the reform in Bill C-25. Hiring will be made on the basis of merit, a notion we wish to expand, to speed up the hiring process. At present, it can take months, even years, each candidate having to be assessed and ranked according to standards set by jurisprudence.

The minister wants to give managers greater leeway. Hiring time will be shortened, but we are wondering at what cost. The employees will have to make sure not only that they meet the position requirements, as they are currently required to, but also that they are on the good side of the boss under whom the position falls, or else they will no longer even be evaluated.

There is therefore the whole issue surrounding recruiting and staffing in which some balance should perhaps be sought, within limits. I realize that the process so far has proven complex and time consuming. But could a middle ground not be found? This is something we have a bit of a problem with.

There is also the whole bilingualism issue. Often, in filling positions, senior officials are hired who are not bilingual, but who undertake to learn the other language. Very often, what happens is that they do not learn that language. It is very important that the bill provide for that, that very strict rules be set to ensure that those hired to fill senior official positions are already bilingual, or are at least proficient in the other official language and prepared to develop their proficiency. People should not be hired, who promise to learn the language but end up never doing it.

There have been many reactions to this bill. These will be discussed in committee. That is the appropriate forum. Some, like Ms. Turmel, from the public service alliance, gave it a cold reception. However, through our work on the committee to try and improve the bill, solutions and common grounds will be found. As I said earlier, we will support and work in close cooperation with the committee. I hope that we will have the minister's full support.

I would like to add one last thing regarding the bill. It is something I was very pleased to see, not only as a member of the Bloc Quebecois, but as an open-minded person. Section 54, on page 133, changes the oaths or solemn affirmations. They are being changed to make them more acceptable to people of all faiths.

When a person accepts a job, he or she has to take an oath or make a solemn affirmation. I agree with the fact that is required. However, swearing something to God serves no purpose if a person does not believe in God. The bill is now sensitive to this issue. I applaud the minister for this. That is what I call modernization.

We will be working hard with the committee. I would like to congratulate the minister for the work that has been put into this. I hope there will also be a procedure, some sort of mechanism to improve the act more than once every 35 years. I hope that maybe there could be a secretariat named to the public service, as we have in Quebec. This would allow for regular updates of the legislation to ensure that we are not operating under obsolete rules, forcing us to do twice the amount of work to improve an act that amends all sorts of other legislation.

So, I hope there will be some openness to these ideas. I would again like to thank the minister for these improvements.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was outlining how the planned restrictions on public employees getting involved in politics is too restrictive. I am encouraged however because the minister told me during the break that she will have a second look at this section of the bill.

Throughout public service various oaths are taken. In Bill C-25 it has been observed that the oaths described do not refer to the Queen or to God. I view the more modern oaths for employee loyalty and non-disclosure for privacy as a contractual concept between employee and employer. There was some concern in the media about an apparent change in the oaths. An example is written in part 4, clause 54 of the bill.

It is my view that the oath is acceptable and reflects the recognition of standards for a modern business culture. The oath reflects a condition of employment that is contractual between the employee and the employer. The oath is job specific and is unrelated to the status of Parliament, the Queen or religion.

The Canadian Centre for Management Development Act will be renamed the Canada school of public service act. The purpose is to integrate learning activities in the public service. Training and Development Canada, which is currently administered by the PSC, and the Canadian Centre for Management Development will be amalgamated into a new institution of learning called the Canada school of public service.

Through this action it is hoped that the government will be mindful of the Justice Institute of British Columbia and its experience in public service training for many disciplines, the cross system synergies that can be found and also comprehend the capacity to market the school around the world.

It is hoped that this new federal school will have a broad mandate and that any permanent employee can apply for the use of its services. It is hoped that the school's mandate will be delivered under its auspices across the country as close as possible to where federal employees work and reside.

It is also hoped that partnerships will be strengthened with various universities, especially those with schools of public administration like the University of Victoria for example. The possibilities are limitless as Canada can sell its expertise around the world. With an outward attitude for participation rather than the Canadian tendency to isolate ourselves from world trouble, we could become the world's standard bearer to bring civil society and trusted public institutions to emerging democracies.

I also want to talk about the duty of public employees to observe and report wrongdoing, and having some protection so they do not bear retaliation for speaking up. The minister provided me with a long memo about “the policy on the internal disclosure of information concerning wrongdoing in the workplace”, which became effective in November 2001. Despite wide dissemination, I wonder how many public employees are aware of this system-wide policy. I doubt that many generally know of it. The policy is to allow employees to bring forward information concerning wrongdoing and to ensure that they are treated fairly and are protected from reprisal when they do so in a manner consistent with the policy.

I say to the minister that a long memo and attempts to have it circulated are not good enough. The memo could be rescinded tomorrow. The basic policy needs to be noted in the statute, something to the effect that Treasury Board will establish, observe and report wrongdoing policy for the public service and that the exercise of that policy in good faith will protect employees from activity that could be interpreted as reprisal. It need not be a long section. However the memo needs to have a basis in the statute in law, and the actual details would then form part of the volumes that Treasury Board produces for conduct.

We on this side of the House observe that the government has a big problem of morale in the public service. Many are stressed out and many are very cynical about anything changing for the better. The top levels want to leave and there may be a wave of retirements coming. Employees have seen many projects like universal classification, reorganization schemes and pronouncements by governments, come and go. Therefore they may be looking at this bill as just another one of those.

The data shows that worker satisfaction is declining. I can certainly tell the minister that consumer satisfaction with services from federal agencies is certainly declining.

Let me be specific on that one for a minute. All of what we do here in this place is for the country. We work for the citizens and they pay all the bills. When we start to legislate and reorganize the public service, we have to talk about the public for whom all of this is supposed to be.

Government likes to change things form the top downwards. We think of a Lee Iacoca coming in and saving the basket case of Chrysler Corporation, or the new chief executive officer at IBM coming in to save old blue, driving change from the top with a new vision, a new leader, new ways of doing things. However, when we make such efforts, where do we put in the equation for the customer, the consumer, the taxpayer, the driving from the bottom up approach?

Being a grassroots reformer type of person, I am always looking at the grassroots perspective. Of course, being a politician I must always assess where the community opinion is. Understanding that in the public service we do not have real market forces, one has to assess the corrective power of consumers in a different way. One cannot go to a different store window and say, “Well, because we are not getting service from the immigration department, we will just go to some other window and get immigration service there”.

We must look at customer satisfaction to assess our accomplishments for the public service. For example, if an average Canadian citizen goes abroad and marries someone, it may take up to three years to get landed immigrant status for a basic no problem file. The newlyweds could be separated for years. This is actually happening in Canada right now. That low standard of performance is just absolutely ridiculous.

The next example concerns the CCRA. We will all be filing out income tax forms soon and they are unreasonably complicated. When we see the distress of senior citizens trying to cope with these forms, we wonder who is serving whom. We can go down the list. For instance, I was at a town hall meeting with war veterans, seniors trying to communicate and get benefits due to them. With the initiative of government online and the emergence of automated call centres, the government is actually retreating from and disappearing from the clients that it is supposed to serve.

In so many ways the system is completely backwards, as the taxpayer has to go to unusual lengths to accommodate the bureaucracy, when it should be the other way around where the system has a duty to accommodate and also effectively communicate with those it is supposed to serve.

How do we give the best value for dollar, for the money that has been taken from voters? Will they get a passport when they need it in a timely manner? Will they be protected from terrorists who come here as bogus refugees? Is our Canada pension plan threatened by unwise plays and mounting losses on the stock market? Will a soldier receive extra help when he needs it when he gets home? Does our democracy work? These are public service employee issues.

I suggest the bill is just a small start at the beginning of a long process to get us out of a bad state. The collaboration the minister talks about with the unions can begin right here, right now in the House, by allowing the bill to be continued to be built by the pragmatic expertise and goodwill in the chamber.

She may defend the House against those vested interests deep in the Treasury Board, in the PCO, in the PMO who are saying why things cannot be done and why the opposition cannot be trusted for having sound judgment or having a concept of the bigger picture.

I commend the minister for her enterprise. I commit that we on the official opposition side will be constructive, for the last thing we desire is to play politics with the lives of public employees, for we all desire that Canada become the very best.

My House leader has asked me, because of manoeuvres on the other side related to private members' business, that all legislation will have an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-25, an act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, 2003, the President of the Treasury Board of Canada and member for Westmount—Ville-Marie introduced in Parliament legislation claiming that it would modernize human resources management in the federal public service.

Bill C-25 brings with it a fair amount of Liberal boasting when the minister says the bill is the first wide-ranging legislation reform of human resources management in over 35 years. She says the current system is cumbersome and outdated. I have to ask, who has been minding the store for over nine years? We know that union and management do not get along. However, legislation alone will not save the government in labour relations.

The federal government gets the union behaviour it deserves or, more specifically, the Liberals have historically set the tone as the employer that has created its own unreasonable response from the union side. With this bill, the minister now finally admits that a more collaborative, consultative approach is needed. She is right, but the government has only arrived here in this last year. How fairly did it negotiate when it took over $30 billion out of the workers' pension plan. That whole story sounded more like basic theft rather than negotiations. Employees remember bitterly.

My point is that all the joint councils in the world will not solve the human problem. Consultative and collaborative mechanisms can be created everywhere, but until there is a government that has an inherent philosophy that values employees and over time earns their respect by being always fair and honest with its workers, it will not realize its stated hopes for a balanced approach for human resources modernization.

Before me I see a bill of technicalities. Where is the commitment by the government to a set of values it would impose on itself first while, through this bill, it is prescribing values for others? Through this legislation it is prescribing values for the public service. I am sorry, we are now going to call it public administration. Where, at the same time in this so-called new era, is the government boldly describing self-imposed standards through which it could actually earn respect and create a culture of cooperation with workers?

The Liberals should apologize to Canadians and come clean with workers about broken promises. A new culture and climate must come from government first. It is my assertion that more can be accomplished in 10 minutes when everyone has learned through experience to trust each other and that they can all pull together than what could be accomplished in 10 years of bureaucracy making and rules manoeuvring.

I am talking about leadership. Leadership for a country so that we have some idea where we are going and we have a set of ideals of circumspection for political conduct as we journey on that national road to the future as a society. Wise and inspirational leadership is the only way in the long term for the grand hopes for a new collaborative management-labour culture.

One cannot legislate or coerce employees away from their sense of historical justice. The government cannot legislate away the memories and the deep sense of grievance. It has to earn it year in and year out.

That being said, I agree that the public service needs to have a renewed legal framework for its staffing and management practices to allow it to operate more effectively and to better meet the needs of Canadians. However, right off the top we are now going to call it public administration rather than public service. It sounds like an imperious government that claims to know best for everyone, that it will render what it knows as good for us all and administer instead of striving to serve need, serve the taxpayer in whose name we have government departments who serve the public interest, and serve to be accountable. Will citizens now be mere supplicants who will be administered?

The bill would provide for a new Public Service Employment Act, a new Public Service Labour Relations Act and would amend the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and the human resources provisions of the Financial Administration Act.

The minister claims it is a balanced approach. However, it could be seen that under the guise of flexibility, while the employer makes room to adjust, it may also make room to manipulate and run rough over the plight of workers who would then increasingly turn to their union for a confrontational response.

The last situation we want to create is where the most prominent document on a worker's desk is a union contract. It can happen when a power shift occurs and new flexible authority is not implemented wisely. The government as a manager has started in a deep hole and if it ever hopes to get to higher ground, the powers that come through increased flexibility would have to be used carefully to obtain objective outcomes in a manner that makes sense to all those involved.

I hope that through better leadership from government, the increased flexibility in staffing and management of people will have safeguards to sustain a merit based, non-partisan public service. The minister sees the need for more constructive and cooperative labour-management relations to support a healthy, productive workplace. Does the government have any clue as to how to operationalize it?

Certainly, a greater commitment of resources to appropriate kinds of training is a start, especially skills in human relations and business, understanding organizational behaviour, industrial psychology, the science of decision-making, team building and people management. They all need to become part of the regular culture.

Wherever there is a supervisory role, even at lower levels, the incumbent must be given the people management training and be required to meet standards for supervising people. More coherent skill building can help employees pursue professional development to help meet the corporate needs of the public service. Clarified roles and strengthening accountability for institutions and individuals responsible for managing the public service should be an ongoing environment of review. Leaders cannot manage what they do not measure and assess.

A transparent culture of evaluation for both outcome and means must become the natural way of being rather than just an emergency reaction to the Auditor General or creating another crisis management project. There is a sound role for a vibrant, independent public service commission. Instead of trying to go around it, when it does not appear responsive enough, a better approach would be to fix it. Let us give the public service real resources to do its job and make it produce timely results, then receive the true potentials that such an independent role can deliver. Let us fix it instead of diluting and bypassing it.

This bill does appear to sufficiently maintain the role of the Public Service Commission as an independent appointment agency, accountable to Parliament for protecting merit, but the meaning of merit is watered down from striving for the best person who is most qualified to any from a group who may meet minimum requirements.

The minister claims the new approach to merit would improve a manager's ability to appoint people more quickly, when and where they are needed, while providing safeguards against abuse. My warning is that if the new direction is not done wisely, the broad system malaise that has been talked about so widely by the professional observers of the public service would only deepen and there would be no renewal of the public service culture. Nevertheless, I remain hopeful for the new independent public service staffing tribunal that would review internal staffing complaints and protect employees against abuse of authority.

My message to the minister is to give the tribunal a lot of capacity up front, as it is likely to be swamped in the beginning until things settle down. The start-up window for credibility would be very short and there would be little room for mistakes on this one. Let us make it comprehensive and capable. Let us resource it fully and ensure that it works for the benefit of everyone across the country.

The minister, through the bill, also realizes the need to assist the oversight role of Parliament. The statute outlines the requirement for the Treasury Board to report annually on human resource management issues. If this were to become one more feel good document that is so typical from the government, then the whole exercise would be lost. I would prefer an element of outside government assessment and certification as part of this reporting exercise, including computer access to the raw data. If the government wants to become transparent, here is its real chance.

The minister hopes the bill, to which we refer as the PSMA, would set the stage for a more constructive dialogue between managers and bargaining agents representing more than 85% of the public service workforce. They hope to improve collective bargaining through enhanced mediation and provide for more flexible methods to resolve conflict. This is very nice, but they certainly do not need to wait for a new act to behave more wisely, for it was always within the grasp of government to behave.

The government will try to fix things with new public interest commissions which will replace existing conciliation boards, supposedly to help parties resolve disputes and recommend settlements in consideration of the public interest. However, the government gets the union behaviour it deserves based upon years of previous conduct. While management must have both the legal power and the skill to manage, we have not yet seen an attitude from the Liberal political masters that any of the system tinkering in this bill would make much difference.

The government would also create a new Canada school of public service by amalgamating Training and Development Canada and the Canadian Centre for Management Development to provide coordinated and innovative learning for employees and managers.

I have optimism for this new arrangement. The government says that it has a strategy to equip the public service to adapt with excellence to the changing needs of Canadians. It makes a lofty claim when it says that through training it is committed to fair and respectful employment practices and effective workplace dialogue.

The government claims that the PSMA is a balanced legislative package resulting from research and consultation conducted by the task force on modernizing human resource management in the public service. We will be hearing from members of the task force at the committee stage process whether enough of their recommendations are in the bill.

Concerning the changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, it is to improve the labour-management relationship in the public service while maintaining the existing basic labour relations framework with a view to contributing to a healthy and more productive public service workplace. I note a change in the name of the act, which employs labour relations instead of staff relations to modernize the vocabulary.

A new preamble in the bill tries to underscore the value of co-operative labour relations within a context where the public interest remains paramount. The government says that it is committed to a fair, credible and efficient resolution of matters arising in respect of the terms and conditions of employment. I hope it can lead by example. Certainly the disrespect it has shown Parliament in the past does not help its credibility when dealing with the workers who administer the people's business across the country. It seems some cabinet ministers and even backbench Liberal MPs think that the public service works for the Liberal Party.

Let us be mindful that the bill before us today must be viable, regardless of which political party forms the government in the years to come. What we are doing today should represent more leadership through partnership rather than control through rules.

The bill would affirm in law both the employers right to manage, to determine its own organizations, the assignment of duties and classification of positions, as well as some employee freedoms related to union activity. I hope the government will have the common sense to negotiate with the unions a more reasonable, practical amount of union activity that will be permitted on employer time and on employer premises.

There also would be a new public service labour relations board. The board's mandate would be broadened to provide adjudication, mediation and compensation research and analysis services. It is hoped that the individuals who are appointed to the board will be of the highest calibre the country can produce and who can inspire confidence from all sides, for their role is so important. The board would also continue to provide facilities and administrative support to the national joint council, which is recognized in the bill.

In respect of compensation analysis and consequent bargaining, it should be clarified that in general, public sector compensation levels should be referenced to and follow the benchmarks of the private sector and not lead them.

Two tier bargaining would allow for service wide bargaining to set the broad parameters for terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit, while permitting precise details to be negotiated in departments if the employer, the bargaining agent and the deputy head jointly agree. It is designed to result in terms and conditions more appropriately tailored to the needs of the job. The concept of a single master agreement, completed or complemented by sectoral agreements, is very well established across Canada.

Conciliation boards and conciliation commissioners would be replaced by public interest commissions. Public interest commissions would be non-permanent bodies consisting of one of three persons appointed by the minister responsible to assist the parties to resolve their dispute and make recommendations for settlement. The chairperson of the PSLRB would be able to recommend the appointment of a public interest commission, either at the request of the parties or on his or her own initiative. I would hope that if we ever get to that poor situation that one of these needs to be appointed, it would not be used for the government to negotiate through the media.

The right to strike would not be acquired until 30 days after an essential service agreement had been concluded. No essential service employee would be allowed to participate in a strike and it would be prohibited for any person to impede or prevent employees who provide essential services from entering or leaving their place of work.

Concerning strike votes, the bill would require bargaining agents to hold secret ballot strike votes in order to declare a strike. I think that is very wise.

The bill also would ensure that all bargaining unit employees have the right to vote and to be given a reasonable access to the vote. Strike votes would have to be held within 60 days preceding any strike. A majority of those voting would have to be in favour in order for a strike to be declared.

Concerning the informal conflict management system, each deputy head in the core public administration would be required, in consultation with bargaining agents representing employees in the department or organization, to establish an informal conflict management system and inform the employees in the department or organization of its availability.

Concerning amendments to the Financial Administration Act, the delegation of authority and responsibility to deputy heads, considerable sweeping power is given for their human resource requirements and their allocations. With deputy heads receiving such tremendous authority, it is hoped that ministers will keep them accountable. May we never see another HRDC scandal.

Concerning the Public Service Employment Act, the government claims to modernize staffing in the public service, clarify roles and responsibilities and give new meaning to merit, create new arrangements for staffing recourse and establish a regime for political activities of public service employees.

The preamble to the bill has some nice sounding commitments of appreciation for the public service, which later may be undermined in its implementation. It talks about the importance of a modern, flexible staffing regime based on merit without political interference. It mentions excellence, integrity and reflecting national diversity, whose members are drawn from across the country.

That very ideal is too frequently undermined by the geographic prohibitions against all Canadians having equal opportunity to apply for a competition. Such practice by the government hurts national unity and is a stain on our international reputation as a free and democratic society. I call on the minister to immediately prohibit any such discrimination in hiring, for the free goods, capital and labour is fundamental to a market economy and a functioning democracy.

Responsibilities would be clarified among the Public Service Commission, Treasury Board, the employer, deputy heads and the new public service staffing tribunal. The PSST, as we would call it, would adjudicate complaints against internal appointments and establish regulations regarding complaint procedures. As I have mentioned, it is a very important entity.

We now come to the principle of merit that should apply throughout the public service at all levels. Initial appointments by the Public Service Commission would continue to be based on merit, free from political interference it is said, but with an approach to try and streamline the lengthy staffing process.

The following new definition is likely to be fought over and has already generated some national controversy in the media. An appointment would be based on merit when the Public Service Commission determines that the person meets the essential qualifications for the work to be performed and has regard to any additional qualifications that would be an asset or has regard to the operational requirements or current and future needs of the organization that may be identified.

The new meaning of merit would reflect the new roles and responsibilities of the PSC, the employer and the deputy heads. The employer would determine the needs of the public service, such as skill shortages and incapacities. The deputy heads would determine particular needs within their organizations, such as shift work availability and essential qualifications, as well as complementary qualifications that would be an asset for the job but that are not essential. It would be expected that the PSC would conduct the assessments and make the selection.

My problem is that the new, watered down definition of merit gives no direction to select the best person for the job within a specific competition process. Since that basic goal would no longer be required, no justification or accountability would be required to defend perhaps a sloppy selection process or even insider advantage to a favoured person.

There is nothing that will bring the whole system down faster than the informal social network of news among employees when it becomes known that a significantly less able employee was selected for promotion under the new proposed system, where this so-called winner met the basic qualifications but was clearly not the best person within any given competition. I say to the minister that she will have a disaster on her hands if she fails to fix this most basic definition.

Merit means exactly that, the person with the most merit within any given competition must be hired. That was the definition of the courts.

The parallel is the letting of contracts, which should be a straightforward business activity, but over which the government stumbles time after time.

The issue of contracts for the federal government is fraught with trouble across the country. It is because the government always seems to want to fudge the rules and play favourites and has insufficient standards that cannot be avoided. It is still too easy under present contracting rules to reward its political friends. That is why sealed bidding processes were developed for contracting in the private sector.

The minister knows all the trouble, the unfairness and the manipulation that goes on with contracting and picking a winner in a competition. The same potential for human nature will apply with a watered down definition of merit in the public service.

It is possible to be efficient and effective and still be fair. Alternately, can it be a wise use of human resource potential to not select the best person in a competition rather than just any from a group of unknown alternative criteria?

Since merit would now be just kind of incidental, why would a competition for promotion even be held? That operational hope is not acceptable. We can be efficient and fix the bottle necks without watering down the principle of merit.

Let us go to clause 33 which permits a secret or unadvertised appointment process. That is also unacceptable. It is not too onerous to post a competition on a computer database that is searchable on the net. Timely advertising of vacancies and promotional opportunities is an inherent part of the proper working of the merit principle. They are tied together.

Clause 34 includes the discredited language where it states:

--the commission may determine an area of selection by establishing geographic, organizational or occupational criteria....

This present definition in law cannot stand as it is so fundamental to all of what it means to have an independent and professional public service. It goes to the heart of why we have a Public Service Commission and what it was created for in the first place. Geographic discrimination is intolerable, and the public expects no less.

No system of appointment or promotion competition is perfect. I am pleased to see recourse for an employee is spelled out in the bill for internal appointment processes. The bill would allow informal discussion to occur between hiring managers and candidates throughout a staffing process to address concerns and correct errors with a view to reducing the need for formal recourse. Where formal recourse is necessary there would be a new, independent tribunal, called the public service staffing tribunal, to replace the current PSC appeal boards.

Employees who are in a competition would be able to make a complaint to the PSST for adjudication based on some grounds. These grounds would include abuse of authority, such as personal favouritism, or denial of the right to be assessed in the official language of one's choice.

The PSST would be able to interpret and apply the Canadian Human Rights Act if a discrimination issue were to arise, and if appropriate, give monetary relief in accordance with the act for pain and suffering and/or special compensation where the behaviour was wilful or reckless.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission would have the right to be notified if issues of discrimination were raised before the PSST and would have standing to make submissions to the PSST. This is designed to promote better decision making by the tribunal in the area of discrimination and employment and to streamline recourse.

However the provisions of the bill would not prevent an employee from making a complaint to CHRC.

The most practical and important part is missing from the legislation. What I do not see is that the PSST should have the clear power to negate a selection and require the process to be done over again with the opportunity for additional applicants to join in. That is the most appropriate, effective, corrective measure to ensure managers are fair, or, if they do not behave, they would have to do the same process over again next time and select the best person. The timelines could be quite fast and need not be seen as a bottleneck. This issue is so basic that it must be fixed.

It seems most reasonable that employees of separate agencies would automatically be able to participate in selection processes open to employees in the core public administration. Agency positions likely were formerly within the public service in any event, such as the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Separate agencies would also be able to request that the PSC approve its staffing regime so that its employees could be deployed into the core public administration.

In the act the Public Service Commission would be required to consult with bargaining agents on key issues, principles governing layoffs, priorities for appointments, qualification standards, the definitions of promotion, probation deployment and appointment to level. Staffing would continue to be outside the scope of collective bargaining.

The PSC would have the authority to investigate whether an appointment was politically motivated or whether fraud occurred in an appointment process and could take corrective action, including revocation, if it was determined that an appointment was tainted by political influence or by fraud.

Now let us talk about term employees. They would be automatically converted to indeterminate, or what I would call permanent status, at the end of the cumulative period of appointment specified by the employer in circumstances determined by the employer. Currently I think that time is three years and it should be reduced to two years, calculated in actual hours of a normal working year.

The use of casual workers should be a concern to all of us. The allowable period of casual employment would be limited to a maximum of 90 days in any calendar year under the act. The government should review where it is using this practice with an effort to severely limit its use unless absolutely vital.

Citizens working in public service should not necessarily lose their political rights. On this matter, I do not think the government has the right balance in the legislation. The new act does try to establish a regime for political activities which balances the rights of employees to engage in the political process with the principle of political impartiality in the public service.

The scope of prohibited political activities is established in the act and through regulations of the governor in council are made on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. In the case of deputy heads, at that high level the act would limit their political activities to just voting, which is appropriate. However, the requirement to obtain leave from the PSC to be a candidate in a federal, provincial or territorial election would be retained and a requirement would be added to obtain permission from the PSC to be a candidate in regional and municipal elections. The same regime would apply in relation to seeking to be nominated as a candidate. These are unreasonable restrictions.

There is also no definition in the bill that requesting leave should not be unreasonably withheld. A decision to grant or not to grant should also be appealable to somebody.

The real problem arises in the long process of seeking a nomination. In my personal example, I was a permanent provincial public employee. I was able to seek a federal nomination without my employer's knowledge or permission as my volunteer time, as long as it was legal, was none of the employer's business. I won my nomination but I had to wait about a year before the writ was dropped and the campaign started. No one, except federal government insiders, knew when the election campaign would start. I was able to invoke the section of the labour agreement that granted unpaid leave for up to five years when I requested it, without having to obtain the employer's consent. Related to my ability to perform my public service job, I was able to amicably invoke the start date of my unpaid leave. This was in 1993 and it looks like the federal government has still not caught up to enlightened British Columbia on that matter.

Work performance is the business of the employer. A conflict of interest concerning confidential government information is the business of the employer. However beyond that it is not the employer's business whether people are politically active, whether they belong to a party, if they do volunteer political work in their leisure time and if they obtain a nomination for an election for some unknown time in the future.

The government attitude, as reflected in the bill, is still in the dark ages concerning basic political rights and the encouragement of the brightest and best in the federal public service to come forward and appropriately become politically active. The sections as they are written are unrealistically paternalistic and controlling and are actually quite insulting. They would never withstand a charter argument if one was created.

Therefore I look forward to the minister assigning some resources to review this section of the bill as, on the face of it, it is far too restrictive and flies in the face of our democratic ideals in this country.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved that Bill C-25, An Act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to move second reading of the Public Service Modernization Act, a bill that puts the focus on our most important resource in government, our employees, who are there to serve Canadians.

It is a bill that sends a strong message to managers, public servants and union representatives that the good management of our human resources must be our first priority.

I have always believed that people are central to any organization, and in a service driven organization like the public service it is even more true. Our ability to continue to meet the needs of Canadians depends on the quality of our people and on how well we lead them and manage them.

Two years ago, the government made a clear commitment in the Speech from the Throne to introduce long-awaited legislative reforms to the human resource management system of the public service, to ensure that it can attract the diverse talent it needs to respond to the challenges of the 21st century.

The government made this commitment because it recognizes that the Public Service of Canada is an important national institution that has served Canadians well for generations and must continue to do so. A professional, impartial and talented public service, in fulfilling its mission, contributes to the high quality of life we all enjoy.

Today governments, the private and voluntary sectors are facing a rapidly evolving operating environment. The pace of change seems to be accelerating, driven by technological advances and globalization.

Day to day work is becoming more and more knowledge-intensive, demanding new skill sets and forcing the need for an adaptable labour force. Demographic shifts are also creating an aging workforce and greater pressure for an inter-generational transfer of knowledge and expertise.

Governments face additional challenges. Public expectations of government are growing as citizens rightfully demand better service and greater involvement in decision making. Competition for talent with other employers is going to intensify in an increasingly tight labour market. Large numbers of federal public servants are expected to retire over the next decade and will need to be replaced. The public service of Canada needs to adapt to the shifting circumstances of the new century. It must ensure that it has the right workforce to successfully deliver its mission of serving Canadians.

To have an exemplary workforce, we must provide an exemplary workplace. For the public service, an exemplary workplace is a place that embraces diversity, where employees are proud to belong and where they can work in the official language of their choice and receive fair compensation. It is a supportive, professional environment that values competence and results, where decision making is delegated down to the level that makes the most sense, and where people are encouraged to be innovative and to use their judgment but are also held accountable for their actions. It is a place that promotes learning and professional development for all employees.

Of course such a workplace must also be a place of harmonious labour relations, with a real spirit of co-operation between the employer and union representatives, working together in a context where the public interest remains paramount.

These principles of an exemplary workplace are the principles upon which the Public Service Modernization Act was based. In fact, these principles are clearly set out in the two preambles contained in the bill. The values outlined in the preambles are the foundation upon which our human resource management system would be set.

As you know, the government has been working for some time now to improve the way it manages its people. Over the last few years, it has taken steps to combat harassment, strengthen diversity in the workplace, support employees with disabilities, and encourage learning.

Recently, we have renewed our commitment to official languages and have implemented a policy on internal disclosure for employees who wish to come forward with information about internal wrongdoing. We will soon be going forward with a new code of values and ethics for the public service.

Our legislative framework is the bedrock upon which all these and other human resources practices and policies are built. The public service modernization act proposes the fundamental changes we need. It represents a balanced approach to achieving many important objectives of human resources modernization and to creating an exemplary workplace.

The proposed bill will eliminate unnecessary red tape in staffing. It will lay the foundation for more constructive and harmonious labour relations. It will clarify the responsibility and strengthen the accountability of the key players in the human resources management system, the Public Service Commission, deputy heads and the Treasury Board, and it will provide greater support for employees in the area of learning so that they can pursue their professional development and continuously meet the needs of the public service.

Today we take a great step forward with the first major legislative reform of human resources management in over 35 years. I would like to speak for a moment about each of these three key aspects of the bill.

Let me begin with staffing. Competence and non-partisanship should be fundamental values of any professional public service. It is true today for our public service and it will continue to be so. Let me be very clear: the proposed bill will in no way deviate from these values. In fact, it will reinforce them.

The current staffing system was designed with the merit principle as the cornerstone of public service hiring. However, in trying to achieve the ultimate objective of protecting the merit principle, our current system sets prescriptive and time consuming mechanisms for determining the best qualified candidate for a given position.

In 2000, the Auditor General reported that, on average, it takes 119 days to complete an internal appointment. In trying to guarantee excellence we have in fact hindered our ability to hire and retain the best and the brightest.

The Public Service Modernization Act would return the merit concept to its original intent of ensuring that competence is the basis for appointments, by requiring that an individual meet the qualifications for the work. Merit could also include the consideration of operational requirements, and the needs of the organization and the public service as determined by the deputy head and the employer. The bill in no way sacrifices the merit principle; but it does change our approach to it.

As a public institution, the public service is not, and cannot be managed in the same way as a business. It is, and must be subject to greater scrutiny in its hiring and management practices.

The Public Service Modernization Act would provide for more effective accountability. It would better align the roles and responsibilities of those who manage people in the government. It would clarify their roles and responsibilities.

This bill would maintain the Public Service Commission as an independent agency, accountable to Parliament, responsible for protecting the merit principle and ensuring that competence and non-partisanship are at the core of our staffing system.

Through the realignment of policy and training responsibilities, the commission would become more tightly focused on its mandate of ensuring merit and its responsibility to monitor, investigate and audit staffing activities.

The legislation would establish a new, independent public service staffing tribunal that would conduct third-party reviews of internal appointment complaints, assisting in protecting the integrity of the staffing system against abuse of authority.

The bill would also strengthen and clarify the role of the Treasury Board as the employer, granting it authority to set qualification standards and certain other human resources policies and regulations. It would also be responsible for determining the current and future needs of the public service.

The public service modernization act envisages increased delegation to deputy heads, balanced with stronger accountability. Deputy heads would determine the qualifications required for the work to be performed, along with the operational requirements and the needs of their organizations, as these are integrally linked to their management responsibilities. In addition to their delegated authorities, deputy heads would have direct authority to determine the learning and development needs of their employees, provide awards and set standards of discipline based on policies and guidelines by the Treasury Board.

These proposed changes to the staffing system would uphold the principles in the preamble and would support our vision of an exemplary workplace.

It is not just our staffing system that needs to be reformed. We must also modernize our approach to working with the bargaining agents that represent our employees. The federal public service is largely unionized and will stay that way. This is not a reality that we must accept; it is a reality that we should embrace. The more than 17 bargaining agents that represent 85% of our employees have ultimately the same objective as we do, to make positive change in the workplace. It is time that the unions are considered as partners in our quest to create an exemplary work environment, not as obstacles.

Inspired by the Fryer committee, the bill before us, through a new and renamed Public Service Labour Relations Act, would introduce important changes to the current labour relations framework.

To improve dialogue and consultation, the government would require each deputy head to establish a joint labour-management consultation committee as a forum to discuss workplace issues.

The employer or deputy heads could also enter into co-development arrangements with bargaining agents that allow for joint discussion and problem solving and mutually agreed solutions without hindering the responsibility of management to make decisions.

The new legislation would recognize the National Joint Council as a potential forum for multilateral consultation and co-development. The NJC is an example of success where union and employer representatives work together in partnership.

The proposed bill would foster opportunities for informality and efficiency in the collective bargaining process. The bill would expand the role of the public service labour relations board, currently known as the Public Service Staff Relations Board. It would provide the chair with the flexibility to work informally with parties to mediate and help them reach agreements sooner. It would provide for more informed negotiations by providing compensation research and analysis services to the employer and the bargaining agents.

As in current practice, bargaining agents would continue to choose between arbitration or conciliation to resolve collective bargaining impasses. However, new ad hoc public interest commissions would replace the existing conciliation boards and would consider the public interest when helping to resolve disputes. Appointed from a list of mutually agreed upon individuals, they would have the flexibility to mediate. Public reporting by these new commissions, coupled with their status and credibility, will help move the parties toward resolution and avoid strikes.

In case of a labour dispute and should public service employees exercise their right to strike, Canadians want to be reassured that they can rely on the government for the programs and services they need.

The proposed bill would ensure that all essential services would be provided during a strike. The government would have the right to establish the level of essential services that are needed to ensure public safety or security.

However, consistent with the new approach of partnership, the government and the bargaining agents together would determine the number of positions needed to provide these services.

The bill would modernize the management of conflicts in the workplace. It would require departments and agencies to offer informal conflict management services to all employees. This is an important addition to the formal processes that are now in place and would help resolve conflicts early, before they turn into formal disputes.

These proposals to the labour relations regime will require effort and attitude change on the part of managers and union representatives alike. Everyone must do their part.

However, given that both parties have the common objective of creating a healthy and productive work environment, it would only be in the interest of public service employees and ultimately the Canadian public to see these changes through.

Another key aspect of a modern workplace is training and development.

Clearly, one of our first priorities in implementing these reforms to the human resource management system would be to train our employees on how to function in this new environment. Linking people, their knowledge, and know-how to the mission of the public service must be a fundamental component of modernization and a critical element to the long term success of fostering in the public service an exemplary workplace.

The most efficient policies and systems in the world would come to naught unless managers and staff are trained in their usage. Our current approach to learning is fragmented and uncoordinated.

Bill C-25 proposes the creation of the Canada school of public service which would combine the Canadian Centre for Management Development and Training and Development Canada. The mandate of the new school would be to offer corporate, and other learning and development activities to all public service employees and managers across the country.

This integration of our learning services is key to better deliver training and development activities and to ensure that our public workforce has the capacity and knowledge to be able to adapt to change.

Ultimately, the government's capacity to deliver results for Canadians will depend significantly on its ability to promote a culture of continuous learning that will make the public service an organization that embraces innovation, tolerates responsible risk-taking and that continuously strives to improve in the way it delivers its mission.

Fundamental reform of this magnitude takes time and it cannot happen overnight. The public service must not only endeavour to implement change, but to do it right.

That is why we are looking at a multi-year timeframe to implement these changes—so we can review our progress, see what is working and what is not and adjust accordingly. As we move forward with implementing our reforms, we must be transparent and accountable for the results.

An essential element of effective accountability and transparency is clear and concise reporting. The hon. members of this House want timely, comprehensive information on how the public service is being managed. They need to know what has been achieved, whether the means used were appropriate, and what has been learned.

Under the bill, the President of the Treasury Board would report to Parliament annually on the implementation of the human resources management provisions of the act. This would be in addition to the current requirements to report on employment equity and official languages issues.

In addition, the Public Service Commission would continue to report to Parliament on its activities; the Public Service Labour Relations Board on labour relations issues; and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal on internal staffing complaints under its jurisdiction.

Through this comprehensive reporting, parliamentarians and government would be assured that the changes being implemented are well managed and that our human resources system is continuously being updated to reflect the times. We cannot wait another 35 years to review the system. That is why the bill proposes a review in seven years of our staffing and labour relations regimes.

Members of the House debate issues of great importance to Canadians: issues like health care, the environment, the economy and Canada's role in international affairs. All Canadians depend on us to ensure that government can continue to deliver on these priorities. It is then important to recognize that the public service underpins all that we do in government. People in the public service deliver the services to citizens across Canada and abroad.

Bringing about meaningful change in the public service will take the goodwill of executives, employees and union leaders. But firstly, it will need the support of parliamentarians.

I was quite encouraged to hear the statements by my hon. colleagues from the four opposition parties upon my tabling this bill. There was clear indication of the will to work in a non-partisan and, dare I say, non-confrontational and collaborative fashion to see these changes through so that the public service of Canada can continue to be among the best in the world.

The support of all members for the bill is critical. It would send a clear signal that the House is committed to good government and that serving Canadians with excellence is the main purpose of the public service and parliamentarians alike.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition day. On Friday we will consider Bill C-25, the public service reform bill.

Next Monday we will consider the bill that would reduce the cost of gun control, namely Bill C-10A, the amendments to the criminal code, because we want to reduce gun control costs. On Tuesday we will return to Bill C-24 respecting election finances until 4 p.m. when the Minister of Finance will present his no doubt excellent budget to the House.

The remainder of the week, that is Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week, I intend to call the budget debates.

Public Service Modernization Act

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, An Act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)