Evidence of meeting #86 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you.
Ms. Benson, could you tell me what percentage of your members are over 40?
9:40 a.m.
National President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada
I'm not at all sure. I can tell you that over 60% of my members are women. That I can tell you.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Can you tell me how many are over 40 or over 35?
Maybe Ms. Daviau knows about her membership.
9:40 a.m.
National President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada
I think that—
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
How about Madam Tremblay?
Ms. Tremblay, do you know how many of the members of your union are older than 35 or 40?
9:40 a.m.
President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees
All I can say is that the average age of our members is relatively low as compared to other cohorts, but I do not have that precise information with me today.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
This information interests me a great deal.
I would actually like to get that information. Perhaps we have it already.
9:40 a.m.
National President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada
I could share with you this brief—I think it's actually from the Parliamentary Budget Officer—where they speak to how it is an older workforce, certainly—
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
National President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada
—so we could get you the percentage, but I think what we really want to discuss here is the merit of division 20, which is the charter right. It takes away our right under the rights and freedoms—
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Okay. You know what? I just asked you about the age and that—
9:45 a.m.
National President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada
I realize that, but I would just like to take it to that direction.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you for that.
Given that, maybe it's because I'm a mother of two children aged 23 and 17 and you want to make sure that the workplace makes room for the next generation and gives the next generation an equal playing field, I particularly want to find out from you, Mr. Lee, how this disadvantages young people and how our proposals in Bill C-59 will assist young people.
9:45 a.m.
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
Right. I'm very sensitive to this issue, obviously, as I'm in a classroom. My students are always 22. Every year I get one year older and my students keep coming in and are 22, because I teach only fourth year.
I'm very conscious of this whole “generation screwed” thing that's been started by the professor at UBC. Now I'm answering your question, because I have certainly argued that in a large number of areas in our economy, we boomers run the system. We control the system, and we've tilted the playing field to make sure we're looked after, not because we're trying to hurt them deliberately, but because we're looking after ourselves first.
To answer your question in this instance, if you come down with a serious illness, or you're in a car accident, or you're bicycling or doing something and you're really banged up and you're going to be off work for two or three months, a young person who has been in the public service for only five, six, or seven years simply would not have the sick leave.
Why I'm so strong on this—and this has nothing to do with party politics or partisanship—is that people don't realize that sick leave is open-ended. Once the insurance company says you're off sick, you're off sick until you get better. If you run out of sick leave and you're still sick, then they roll you over onto long-term sick leave. I've seen this at my own university, by the way: you go on short-term sick leave, you run out, and then they flip you onto long-term sick leave because you're still ill.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand the representatives of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada very well. I understand that they are surprised to see that in an omnibus budget, the government is attempting to dispose of an issue that is on the negotiating table.
You mention that this type of process may be unconstitutional, and I believe that that is a very real possibility. It would not be the first time that this government goes before the Supreme Court and is not successful in bringing in certain measures. I calculated that this has happened about a dozen times.
If the government continues this, are you going to launch court challenges? Perhaps Ms. Benson could answer that question.
9:45 a.m.
National President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Thank you very much for the question.
If I might, I will add, just to address Mr. Lee, that we do a bargaining input process. We contact all our members to see what it is that they want us to bring to the table. Not one of them, regardless of age, raised the issue of sick leave.
This is unconstitutional, what is taking place here. Division 20 will allow this government the right to reach into our collective agreement and rip out the sick leave provisions that are there, with no rhyme or reason and no discussion with us. We're currently at the bargaining table, so what this does is predetermine the outcome of our bargaining, and that, quite frankly, is unconstitutional. It goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we will take the necessary steps to ensure that our membership is protected.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I agree with you on this matter.
The government claims that these measures are going to allow it to save $900 million, but you challenge that figure.
Did your organization evaluate this? In the event that this bill were applied as it stands, did your calculations produce a different figure?
9:45 a.m.
National President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Quite frankly, it's an insurance policy and it's actually not really a figure at all. It's not real money. I personally earn 9.375 hours a month. I have over 3,000 hours in my bank that I will never use.
When Mr. Clement, the President of Treasury Board, is asked where he gets the $900 million from, he has no answer. He goes so far as to say that it's still negotiable.
How can it be negotiable, Mr. Clement, if you've already booked $900 million for a projected surplus? That's why we suggest to you that it's not an accurate figure. It's simply an accounting exercise on a piece of paper.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC
This is a problem we are facing with this budget. In a more general way, the government was announcing a surplus of $1.4 billion. And yet we are told that this $900 million is not real money. They have calculated things in a particular way to arrive at that surplus. Moreover, for the quarter that has just come to an end, the forecast was that the gross domestic product would increase by 1.2%, but in reality, there has been a drop of 0.6%. There were supposed to be surpluses in the budget that has been presented, but we parliamentarians, and the entire population, can see that we are instead heading toward a deficit.
I share your opinion that this $900 million amount is fictional money which has been trumped up essentially for political ends. The amount is being used to show that the government is a good manager. However, in principle, a good manager negotiates with its unions and attempts to maintain negotiated agreements as long as possible. However, it is clear that this government does not do that.
I would like to go back to your table, which I found very interesting. You applied the proposed plan to the figures you had for 2013-2014. I see in your table that after having used the six days of sick leave being proposed, 45% of employees who would need leave because they are sick would not be covered by the new plan.
9:50 a.m.
President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees
Indeed. Based on the information we had, we examined the total number of days taken in a year, but also the incidence of leave of more than six days' duration. By analyzing all of this data, we were able to determine that the waiting period that is currently being proposed would mean that a large number of employees would run the risk of either not being paid, or of having to go to work while ill.
I will go back to what my colleague Ms. Benson was saying, which is that we should not be in this committee room trying to negotiate, to determine what is a good regime and what is a bad one. Ultimately, it is the unconstitutionality of the measure in this bill that is the most dramatic aspect of the situation. That is what we should be discussing and not minor technical aspects. As Mr. Lee said, it is as though we were discussing the merits of a three-legged stool.
Tony Clement said it publicly: he assumes that unions negotiate in bad faith and that they would not want to budge from their position. However, that is totally false. Several unions have already made counter-proposals. They admitted that the idea of a short-term disability plan was not necessarily bad. We admit that young workers may perhaps have better coverage. We admit all of that. All sorts of means could be used to reach those objectives, but what we come up against is the government's intransigence. It is using provisions in its budget to give itself extraordinary powers that are deeply unconstitutional.
