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

Patent Act

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, Her Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of organizations)--Chapter No. 21.

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--Chapter 22.

Bill C-6, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other acts--Chapter 23.

Bill C-459, an act to establish Holocaust Memorial Day--Chapter 24.

Bill C-55, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2004--Chapter 25.

Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter 26.

Bill C-50, an act to amend the statute law in respect of benefits for veterans and the children of deceased veterans--Chapter 27.

Bill C-48, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (natural resources)--Chapter 28

Bill S-21, an act to amalgamate the Canadian Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors and The Canadian Association of Financial Planners under the name The Financial Advisors Association of Canada.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[Tony Tirabassi, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can tell that the member is quite passionate about this and would really like a specific answer.

The question of harassment in the workplace is complex and has many dynamics. Treasury Board has been finding ways how to best manage this problem. Many of the large departments have already introduced values and ethics programs, and others are in the process of doing so.

I wish to inform the member that the Public Service Modernization Act, Bill C-25, which was passed in the Senate on Tuesday requires that informal conflict resolution systems be established and applied in each department.

I would hope that she is in agreement that this is a positive development that will lead to a common goal that we all share, which is a harassment free workplace.

Criminal Code

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-20, now at report stage.

Last week, the House unanimously adopted a motion that made quite clear how distasteful we all find those who exploit or hurt the most precious members of our society, our children. They are also the most vulnerable members of our society. Our children need all the protection society can provide. If society cannot protect those we hold most dear, it has failed to do its most fundamental duty.

Members are sometimes taken by surprise. Sometimes that is good; other times it is not. This week, I was extremely surprised to receive an e-mail message from Mr. Sharpe himself. I think that the parliamentary secretary also got one. For this pornographer—because that is what he is—to write to the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as a legislative analyst and legal commentator of our work is very perplexing, to say the least.

From the outset, the Bloc Quebecois has been trying to protect our children from individuals like Mr. Sharpe. We are trying to ensure that our children cannot be hurt or exploited by perverts with rather warped notions about human relationships.

During committee meetings, there were numerous debates, including one on the defence of serving the public good. Initially, the defence of serving the public good was not defined or set out in Bill C-20 and so was quite broad. One after the other, numerous witnesses and experts appeared before the committee to tell members that the concept of public good had to be defined. In committee, the Bloc Quebecois moved an amendment in this regard, which served as the inspiration for the final definition found in Bill C-20. As a result, this bill was improved in committee.

One of the Bloc Quebecois' amendments concerns minimum sentences, and I wish the government had been open to this. The public feels—and I understand this—that sentences for sexual predators and child pornographers are not tough enough.

It was in response to this concern that we proposed an amendment prescribing a minimum sentence. For example, for a maximum sentence of ten years, I proposed a minimum sentence of one year. It is a rather short sentence, but it is enough to send an important message to the effect that the elected members of this House and the general public want to ensure that the sentences imposed upon these perverse and twisted individuals are harsh enough.

I was hoping that the government would seize this opportunity to have a debate of a much more general nature on minimum sentences.

I had the support of both Alliance members and Progressive Conservative Party members, as well as some government members. Unfortunately, I did not have time to convince a sufficient number of them.

I think that it is our duty as members of Parliament, elected by the people, to address this serious issue and to decide collectively to send a clear message to the judiciary. This message would say, “We, parliamentarians, believe that, because our children are so precious, so vulnerable and so dear to us, those who commit these types of offences cannot get away without a mandatory jail term”.

All this to say that the Bloc Quebecois is against the amendment brought forward by the New Democratic Party. I am still not clear what its purpose was. The Bloc Quebecois is asking members of this House to oppose this amendment. It is also asking them to support Bill C-25. We will come back to that at the third reading stage.

We are also asking the House to explore the possibility of imposing minimum sentences. This would ensure that those who prey on our children get the clear message that harsh punishment awaits those who commit these repugnant acts.

National Defence Act

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 96 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998, chapter 35, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the first independent review by the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, PC, CC, CD, of the provisions and operation of Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I also have the honour to table, in both official languages, a second document on the comments by the Minister of National Defence with respect to the first independent review of Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I often meet with Canadian and Quebec women's groups. I heard a comment this week and I would like to hear what the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable thinks about it.

First, people told me that if the House adjourns because of an election and if we in fact move up the implementation of the new electoral map, that will mean that what they have said to their members before the election will get lost. To them, this means that it will take almost a year before they can get an answer or a solution to their problems.

Somebody else asked me: “What do we do about Bill C-22 to amend the Divorce Act? What do we do about Bill C-25 on labour relations in the public service? What do we do about victims of harassment? What do we do about same sex marriage? What will happen with all these bills that people are waiting for? What will happen with poverty and social housing?”

That is what the women's groups were asking and it is also what I am asking my colleague.

Committees of the House

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented on Friday, June 13, 2003, be concurred in.

I understand that I have 20 minutes with a 10 minute question and comment period. I would like to advise the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.

The fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was presented and tabled in the House on June 13, 2003. I would remind all hon. members that this report is the one page report in which the committee reported that it had lost confidence in the Privacy Commissioner.

I would like to read relevant extracts from the report, which states:

Officials of the offices of both the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner, having acknowledged that they were testifying under oath and had a duty to speak the truth, have given the Committee information during a series of in camera hearings that has compelled Members to conclude, unanimously, that the Privacy Commissioner has deliberately misled the Committee on several recent occasions.

The report continues:

Committee Members believe the Commissioner has misled the Committee with respect to: (a) the circumstances under which the Office provided a copy of a letter from which one of the original paragraphs had been deleted; (b) a set of expense reports whose incompleteness was not acknowledged in the cover letter; (c) travel expense forms on which there had been an attempt to conceal, by the application of white-out material, certain information; and (d) the reasons for his failure to appear in person at a hearing on the Commission's main estimates. When these concerns were brought to the attention of the Commissioner or Office officials, some additional documents were provided but the Commissioner has continued to mislead the Committee with respect to these matters in subsequent letters and testimony before the Committee.

The report concludes:

Absolute honesty, in reporting to Parliament and its committees, is a central requirement for all officers of Parliament. Unconditional confidence in that honesty, on the part of parliamentarians, is essential if Parliament is to support its officers in their important duties.

Having deliberated upon the findings set out above, Members of the Committee are in unanimous agreement that they have lost confidence in the Commissioner. We are no longer able to believe that information provided by the Privacy Commissioner about his activities can be assumed to be accurate and complete.

Furthermore, evidence provided to the Committee raises concerns about financial practices in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and the Committee has requested by letter that the Auditor General conduct a comprehensive audit of financial practices at the Commission.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot. I want his constituents to know that he is an excellent member of Parliament who has earned a lot of respect in this place for the work he did to assist the committee to identify in the first instance some of the threads of evidence that led to this report. He is singularly responsible, and his constituents should know that he has been of enormous assistance to Parliament in addressing this most serious matter.

The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is a new committee. We have a number of responsibilities. One of them was to review Bill C-25, a very important bill on the renewal of the public service.

The committee reviewed this very extensive, comprehensive bill, Bill C-25, which came forward after two years of consultation in the preparation of the bill on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board and her department, on behalf of the Public Service Commission, and on behalf of all the representative groups. In the committee's review of the bill, one aspect of that bill and the discussion was the aspect of whistle-blowers. Whistle-blowing is a label given to a person who brings out information when they believe or allege that there is some wrongdoing, which may in fact come back on them in a punitive way, whether it be fear of reprisals, et cetera.

This is a very serious question and I want to assure the House that the President of the Treasury Board, in consultation with the committee and the other stakeholders in this matter, all of us, are working very diligently. In fact, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates now has struck a subcommittee to examine this more carefully to determine what steps might be appropriate to ensure over the long term that our very honourable and capable public service will have the protections it needs, not unreasonable protections but general protections, so that there are no frivolous allegations, but so that should there come to our attention even the slightest allegation of an impropriety or a violation of the Financial Administration Act or other aspects, they will have a venue to be able to bring that to the attention of those who are in a position to properly investigate and to address it as appropriate.

This was the environment in which our committee was first engaged: this aspect of the need for whistle-blower protection. As a consequence, the rest of our responsibilities involved the review of the estimates of a number of departments to look into the financial activities.

The member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot has been a champion for transparency and accountability, for access to information provisions, for protection of privacy, for the protection of the privileges of Parliament, but not unduly, and has championed that if we set standards, we should set standards by our own performance. He is working very diligently to show that parliamentarians are on side. It is extremely important and it is because of his contribution.

I will not be going into the details of how this has all unfolded, but in my brief time I did want to make the point very simply. I want Canadians to know this. Notwithstanding that a particular office, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, with approximately 100 employees, of which it has been identified that there are some people who have committed acts in violation of policies, procedures and maybe even criminal law, I want Canadians to know that this should not be taken as a broad brush indictment of the employees of the privacy commission, of the access to information commissioner's office, or of any other public service group or department.

Our work addressed solely the matters that came to our attention with regard to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. We did not conclude or have any evidence or any indication that the problems we identified in this one office were endemic outside that office. I want to assure Canadians that our public servants continue to be held in high esteem by parliamentarians for their work and the support they give to the processes of making good laws, of making sure that there is compliance with all the rules, the policies and procedures, and the laws of Canada. We had that evidence and the committee is very supportive of our very capable public service.

There is one key area I wanted to mention but that I do not have time to go into, so let me try to wrap up. We will, over the coming weeks and months, be addressing some of the points that came out, not only from the committee's fifth report wherein the details of what we found are laid out and available on the parliamentary website, but also from the Auditor General's report on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. There will be subsequent investigations ongoing, some even referred to the RCMP and to the tax authorities.

This will be with us for some time, but I want everyone to know that from what I can see in this place, parliamentarians are 100% in agreement, not only that each and every one of these matters has to be addressed and disposed of in the specific cases, but that we are committed as a Parliament to ensure that the tools and the changes are made to ensure that this never ever happens again.

Public Service

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

Mr. Speaker, I had to convince the minister to even get a passing reference to whistleblower protection in Bill C-25. The former finance minister who was responsible for creating the red book in 1993 promised it back then. For 10 years he had the money, he had the cabinet influence and yet all we have today is a memo.

When honest public servants try to report wrongdoing and political interference, will they be left unprotected?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, between 1998 and 2002, the Liberal government spent $40 million on the Employment Equity Positive Measures Program. According to the report, which is posted on the web site of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, this program has contributed to building a modern public service. However, none of the recommendations in this report are found in Bill C-25.

Each year, Status of Women Canada spends $11 million on a gender-based analysis. However, some parts of Bill C-25 completely disregard employment equity measures.

Nor is the government introducing legislation to ensure the well-being of its employees. Some 21% of federal public servants claim to be victims of harassment. However, Bill C-25 makes no mention of concrete measures to counter harassment when, clearly, the Canadian government, as an employer, has the obligation to ensure the psychological well-being of its employees.

The Bloc Quebecois reprehends this government, which continues investing heavily in beautiful reports, without applying them or acting as an employer responsible for its workforce.

Public Service Modernization Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the third reading stage of Bill C-25.

Pension Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to throw our support behind this beneficial change. We believe members of the RCMP play a significant role in contributing to Canadian society. This pension issue could be classified by some as housekeeping or just some type of modern modification, but in reality it is about building confidence and showing that we can do some small things that go a long way.

Members of the RCMP are very important to my constituency. They are the instant recognition for what a Canadian is and Canadian symbolism, showing confidence not only in a government but also demonstrating the pride that we have out there in a very overt way. A good place to look at that is in Windsor where we have so many different cultures and groups of new people coming to get their citizenship. One of the things that we always have is a member from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at the ceremony. The constable is usually someone that is very personable and very involved with the actual ceremony itself, making a point to sign any autograph, to shake hands, to be part of photos and to say a few words of comfort as well as a congratulatory message. That is important because it exudes confidence in a nation and a confidence that we have which needs to be backed up. This pension addition is a minor modification, in a sense, but at the same time shows that we need to be doing the right things for them.

There are so many other different issues that we think about when we think about members of the RCMP. It is not just the colours of their uniform and the very overt way that we see their presence, whether it be on a horse or in a parade and those types of things, it is the work they do out in the field on a day to day basis. Once again, improving their actual conditions and their confidence in the government will only help that.

In our community and others, they represent the first line of defence in many ways for what is happening at our borders, the people who are needed to respond to more international matters. In our city, where we have a municipal force and a provincial force as well, the Mounties have a different stature than those organizations because they represent the nation. When we have issues they are certainly there providing another level of confidence that sits well with our other supports, be it those other organizations I mentioned, or our firefighters and other first responders that are so important.

Sometimes we take these things for granted because we have these traditions and we know we can always rely on them. Sometimes we forget to do the regular things that are necessary to ensure their long term viability. That is what the bill would do. It would ensure another piece of a larger puzzle and we will have it to pass on.

That is one of the reasons that we support this change. It is something that, once again, is going to show that there is a longstanding commitment behind the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. More important, the Mounties will improve their ability to feel confident in the work setting.

We have been debating most of the morning and over the last few days the working conditions of public servants. We know from the union's response that there are some concerns about Bill C-25 and their working conditions that are going to be enacted and the difficulty that they are going to face. That is the exact opposite from what this is, and that is unfortunate.

We have two situations here. In Bill C-25 we have some regressive actions that are being taken against those workers and the conditions in which they are going to have to live, but what we have here is something which will be of benefit to the RCMP. We think the way to go is to improve the morale of Canadians who are employed through government tax dollars.

In the last 10 years, far too many times there have been cases where those people have tended to be attacked by different individuals and organizations, and that is not right.

There certainly is an opportunity here to do more of what this recommendation says and with the changes that will happen. I hope the government learns something from this and applies it to Bill C-25. I hope it learns that it can do some of these things that sometimes are described as housekeeping but that actually do improve morale, that do improve the quality of service and that give security for those men and women who are serving this country, and their families, who also have to pay some price for being sometimes on the front line of public services. This is overdue for the RCMP and something that we in the New Democratic Party support.

Public Service Modernization Act

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-25. We in the House know how important this legislation is. There are some 170,000 civil servants in the country and I am told that if the RCMP, the armed forces and several others are added to that figure, the number gets up to almost half a million workers. This is an important piece of legislation that involves 16 bargaining units. We have a lot of work to do on this front to make sure we have a healthy and vibrant public service.

The role of the civil service has been the subject of no fewer than 37 indepth studies in the last 40 years. It is something that we certainly are trying to get right, but I am not sure how successful we have been.

I have received many letters, as have my colleagues, from people in the public service who have described the contents of Bill C-25 as a slap in the face. I would like to deal with some of the specific problems they have talked about, but first I would like to give a bit of a context for the bill.

We have to keep in mind 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 the program review, where one-third of the civil servants were laid off. Many workers were demoralized by job cutbacks. Even though the civil service was reduced by one-third, the amount of work did not change. Employees were struggling with giving service to the public with fewer resources and fewer people to do the job. MPs know that this is the case because we see and hear from our constituents constantly about voicemail and never hearing a human being's voice at the other end of a government phone line because there have been so many cutbacks.

The ultimate insult was when the former president of the Treasury Board took the entire $30 billion surplus out of the employees' pension plan 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 the pension plan went into surplus, the entire surplus of $30 billion was taken out of the employees' pension plan.

The government views surpluses very differently than the New Democratic Party does. In our time here we have certainly seen the massive EI surplus which has grown and grown over the last decade. That money also has not gone toward the purposes for which it was intended. It has gone into general revenues. At the same time a number of unemployed Canadians find that they are unable to collect EI because of the tightening of eligibility rules. The last I heard, only 40% of unemployed Canadians were able to receive EI.

A couple of years ago, the CLC estimated the amount of revenues taken out of Canadian cities because of cuts to EI. At that time the hit for my own community of Dartmouth was estimated to be $20 million. There would be $20 million less per year to be spent in our economy, to be used to support families, to provide a level of security at one of the most difficult junctures in people's lives, that is, when they are faced with unemployment.

The EI surplus also has disappeared. That money has been thrown into general revenues and is not being utilized for the purposes for which it was intended.

As I have said, during the process called program review in which the former finance minister got rid of the deficit, one-third of our civil servants were laid off. In my community of Dartmouth, there are thousands of families in which one or both spouses work for the federal public service. There are offices for DND, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, HRDC, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Heritage Canada, Environment Canada, Canada Post, ACOA, which is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, just to name a few.

We have the regional headquarters for the National Film Board. Until the deep cuts in the 1990s, it was a very important production centre for Atlantic filmmakers and a training ground for young, talented creators getting their start in film. Like dozens of other important government agencies, the Film Board saw devastating cuts in the 1990s. Many people were forced to take a package a number of years before they wanted to leave, stopping them in mid-career when they were just reaching their potential in their field. It is a tragedy how much collective wisdom and knowledge has been lost because of the government's shortsighted program review which saw thousands and thousands of dedicated and caring public servants go out the door.

Now there is Bill C-25, another bill to modernize the public service. The question is how successful is this effort? It falls short in many very important areas and I would like to mention some of them.

Bill C-25 waters down the merit principle by allowing only one person with the essential qualifications of a position to be considered for the job and removing relative merit from the public service employment act. This means that a manager could easily appoint one of his or her favourites to a position.

Bill C-25 also limits the grounds for complaints in a staffing process to abuse of authority and language of choice. Whether or not candidates were tested in their language of choice will be easy to prove, but abuse of authority is almost impossible to prove. This means that very few individuals will be able to successfully challenge any staffing decision that is made.

Bill C-25 also broadens the definition of essential services and gives the employer the exclusive right to determine the level and frequency of services during a strike. This means that the right of strike will be severely curtailed, if not removed completely.

Bill C-25 as it presently stands also gives the employer control of the designations process in a way that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to know which employees are designated and which are not. This means that there will be more problems on the picket line, not fewer.

Bill C-25 also calls for a striking worker who, perhaps unknowingly, prevents a designated worker from entering the workplace to be convicted of a summary offence. This means that the government does not trust its own workers to act responsibly.

Another area that is of very great concern to the New Democrats is that Bill C-25 continues to exclude fundamental workplace issues, such as staffing and classification from collective bargaining. This means that the government has no real interest in working more collectively with unions.

We have heard from some of our Bloc colleagues and also from members of the NDP who have worked hard in committee to try to get some of these important issues addressed. We see again and again a government which we do not believe recognizes the important contributions that the public service makes. Canada's public servants dedicate so much of their lives and talents to make this country work. They make our trains run on time and deliver our mail. Our military, coast guard, immigration and postal services are the meaning of this country and public servants work together to provide those services. The government is not giving the public service the due that is required.

The NDP and the Public Service Alliance of Canada have raised issues in committee, such as the merit principle, grievance procedures, the definition of essential services, strike breaking procedures, staffing and classification for collective bargaining. It is clear that until these issues are dealt with satisfactorily, we will not be able to support Bill C-25 as it currently is drafted.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask a question of the member from the Bloc who I know has been very active on this case file. The Bloc has put over 120 amendments because Bill C-25 is so deficient with a number of different working relationship issues that it will make the services more difficult for people being employed by the federal government.

This should be an opportunity to create a bill that will improve morale and increase the efficiency of the workers. The problems, as outlined by the member, will lead to more difficult times I believe.

There are a couple of things the government could have done to fix things. One was the amendment by the member from the New Democratic Party, the member for Winnipeg Centre, on whistleblowing. We believe is a very important issue. We have seen the scandals that have plagued the government for the last few years, the waste and other different problems. The government is spending a tonne of money on the RCMP right now to investigate these matters, which costs the taxpayers.

We were hoping to get some type of amendment to the bill to provide for whistleblowing. I will quickly read the three major parts to it. The Auditor General would be involved when a wrongful act or omission is:

(a) an offence against an Act of Parliament or legislature of a province or any instrument issued under the authority of any such Act;

(b) likely to cause a significant waste of public money;

(c) likely to endanger the public health or safety of the environment...

It goes on further to explain how whistleblowers would be protected so they would be assured that they would not lose their jobs, or would not be intimidated, or would not lose promotion, all those different things. It would save hopefully a lot of the problems which we have had in the past.

I know the hon. member has a number of different amendments from his party that were put forth, many of them that could actually have made this a good piece of legislation. It has not happened.

This is an amendment we had, and I would like to hear his remarks about it.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-25. As a matter of fact, I must say that last week I was afraid that it might come before the House, as I had promised my labour friends that I would speak to it.

In a previous life, before I entered politics, I was a union representative in my work place. I started out rather timidly. My workplace was not very big. There were around 200 workers. During the summer, there were a lot of students too.

Why did I get involved with the labour movement? I will tell you a little bit about my personal history by way of explanation. I found there were a lot of injustices in my workplace. I say injustice because I believed the employer was abusing certain people. I called it “employer tyranny”. I could see also that some people were treated differently than others and I thought it essential that there be something to counterbalance the employer tyranny, management and personnel management.

It happened very simply around a table. People told me, “Claude, we would like you to become president of the union”. I agreed. As a result, I was involved with labour unions for 20 years not only in my workplace but also at the local and regional levels, where I assumed certain responsibilities. This is why today I am able to talk about this type of bill.

Today, we believe we should vote against Bill C-25 because of the way it was put to the House of Commons and dealt with in committee.

As a matter of fact, this is not the first time such a thing has happened in a committee. When the opposition suggests valid amendments, often the government majority will just turn them all down. This morning, I even heard some of my colleagues suggest some changes to the bill, and they were told on procedural grounds that it was too late to put them forward. However, while it might have been too late to do so, we put forward amendments in committee and they were flatly rejected.

I have been here for almost ten years now and I have found that the Liberal government is not a government for workers, and this is not the first time that I have said this. It is against workers and I have several examples to illustrate this.

In our first term, Parliament was reconvened to pass special legislation to force rail workers back to work. Supposedly, we were given all kinds of time to speak our minds on the subject. We said, “Madam Speaker, we are moving too fast, the government wants to pass special legislation too quickly and we have not given the union and management enough time to work out their issues”. The result was that people had to go back to work under the yoke of special legislation.

The same thing happened to Vancouver dock workers, where all kinds of national reasons were invoked, and where the government said, “The west coast is being paralyzed, we must force employees back to work”. Once again, the parties were not given time, or enough time, to try to resolve the dispute themselves.

The same is true when it comes to federal trusteeship. There is another example, from my riding, in fact. Workers, or rather former workers, at Singer—since they are before the courts right now—were demanding money from the government, which was supposed to act as a trustee and protect their pension fund. The federal government allowed the company to dip into its surplus. The result is that today, these people, whose average age is 85, under this system of trusteeship, find themselves making $10, $15 or $20 a month. It makes no sense.

Instead of telling the company to dip into its surplus, to stop making contributions, the government missed the opportunity to ensure that the surplus could be used to help Singer employees, which would have made their retirement much rosier than it is presently.

And then, to our amazement, after we asked a dozen questions, we understood why the government had refused to return the money to the Singer employees. It wanted to get its hands on the surplus in the federal government employees' fund. Around four or five years ago, the government said, “We think this surplus is ours”, and it grabbed it.

To me, all this means that, when it comes to workers, the only thing that the government is interested in is collecting taxes. It is not interested in providing benefits to these workers through special or effective measures. We have evidence once again with the antiscab legislation. We want something equivalent to what the Quebec government has, that is the banning of scabs, and the government refuses and even argues that unions agree with it that the legislative framework must remain unchanged. This is yet more blatant evidence that the government does not care about workers.

So what is happening today with Bill C-25? The government now argues that the act is 35 years old. The government says that this act must be changed. Now, we find ourselves with a bill that has the same regressive view toward workers. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to it. For numerous reasons, this bill does not contain the elements required to maintain a good work environment.

In labour relations, there are some very important themes we should always keep in mind. They are also the themes in fashion in labour relations today. One is the issue of corporate culture. Here we see the state as employer, with thousands of workers at its disposal, and the employer's response to problems of corporate culture is to create a bill. Another issue was the way the bill was introduced. There has been very little consultation with the unions. That is completely congruent with the position and tactics the federal government has been employing for many years in its relations with the federal public service unions.

I do not think a bill can make corrections to a corporate culture. A corporate culture is imposed from the top down, starting with the Department of Labour or the Treasury Board. It is then reflected in the delegation of powers to local administrators.

Unfortunately, what we have seen for 35 years, and what is still true today, is that there is no respect for the workers. I know something about that. In my riding there is a military base and an agricultural research station; their employees are all federal public servants. The attitudes in these workplaces are very difficult to live with.

As a former union officer, I have a great deal of trouble accepting that in this corporate culture it is the local administrators who impose their views on the workers. They care nothing for any grievance procedure. They will always object to any and all employee demands. Because of this, grievances often have to go all the way to the top level—and that often is quite costly—instead of the employer investing in employee recognition.

One of the reasons given by the President of Treasury Board during her introduction of this bill was that there were recruitment problems in the federal public service. It is not surprising that there are problems. It will take more than a bill to correct a regressive attitude toward workers. There must be a change in corporate culture and this is not necessarily achieved with a little legislation.

The government must recognize and respect its federal public service. It must prove this on a daily basis and with a legislative framework that should be much more open. This means that, when changes to a workplace need to be made, the union must be consulted. The union must be respected. After all, it, and not the employer, represents the workers. The employer likely represents Treasury Board or any other department with federal employees. So, the union must be recognized, and it is the means through which employees should have more say. It is not about handing down measures, imposing them and saying, “Now, we have legislation. This is what is in the act and you are going to implement it”.

With regard to consultations and the unions, at a senior level, they failed, there were practically no consultations. And today, the unions must appeal to members of Parliament. Each of us has, in turn, received phone calls asking us to try to block Bill C-25.

They realized that the attempts to improve the bill in committee, through amendments, failed almost entirely; perhaps one or two amendments were agreed to. So, the business culture cannot be changed by a bill.

As for the bargaining process, let us consider what has happened since the federal public service and the government started bargaining. In the past ten years, I have taken part in at least two bargaining sessions with the federal public service. What happens? The government, which is the employer, is also the legislator. It continues to maintain draconian positions when it comes to the unions. It is impossible to bargain logically. Either the government drags out the bargaining process or else it starts, after some time, to threaten its employees with special legislation.

We know what special legislation means. It means astronomical fines for individuals, the union and union leaders. No one is exempt from this. It is simple, either the government drags its feet at the table or it takes a completely draconian and closed approach to the union. Then we get closer and closer to a black hole, that is special legislation. I gave a few examples earlier of the rail workers strike and the strike at the Port of Vancouver. This does not include all the so-called projects set up by the government for the workers or the non-responses it gives to the workers. I also talked about that earlier.

As for the grievance process, let us not be under any illusions. I think that in matters of arbitration the government will not budge. The only recourse employees have is to file a grievance. I know this from experience. There are hardly any discussions between the union and the employer. The latter is not interested in negotiating anything to do with accommodation on the work site. It says, “I am the local administrator”. I went through the whole bill and took note of the powers that are given to local administrations. It is unbelievable to see how the employer has complete control of the workplace.

The employer might say to the employee, “If you are not happy, file a grievance. I know it will take years before it is settled. If we lose, we will appeal. We will take it further”. The employee waits for years for justice. Often, employees give up because they see they are at a dead end.

As far as essential services are concerned, this is another example I have seen in this bill. The employer is the one that determines essential services. That is just great for a union. I have already seen employers in my province announce, “In our workplace, 100% of services are essential services. Staff has been cut to a minimum and we cannot afford to have a single person absent”.

Now imagine what will happen in federal government workplaces if the word comes down from local administrators that 100% of services are essential services. What means will be left to employees who want to object and force progress at the bargaining table? None whatsoever. All of them are expected to report to work the next day, because 100% of services have been designated essential.

So, in this bill the employer has total control over training, learning, and retraining. He can decide which employees in which units—ones of which he is particularly fond—are to be freed up from work and paid to take training. To the less favoured, he announces, “You keep working. There is no training for you. We are the ones to decide who gets training and retraining”.

This again makes no sense whatsoever. The employer also has the upper hand as far as bonuses and rewards are concerned. In other words, he can authorize lump sum payments or take a certain number of favoured employees out to a restaurant. There will be a great deal of arbitrary judgments involved. All this is what I have fought against in the past, and here it is again in this bill. It is arbitrary and employer-biased, from A to Z .

The same goes for disciplinary measures and sanctions. It is the employer who will decide, on his terms, what sanctions and disciplinary measures to apply. I have seen plenty of these also, of all kinds.

I have a lot of people come to my office and say, “I am sick and tired. My employer is constantly on my back even though I am not any worse than the rest of them in such and such unit on the military base or at Agriculture Canada or the research centre. I have been disciplined for a certain behaviour and colleagues with the same behaviour have not”.

Again, this is an example of the employer's arbitrariness. Employers will be able to determine what the needs of the public service are. They may make mistakes. Again, there is no mention of negotiating that with the union. Is anybody in a better position than front line workers to say, “This is what we believe we need in the near future. We are at work everyday in the field and we can see how things are evolving. We can see that service is diminishing. We can see that the demand for service is going up, and this is what we suggest”. But this is not how it will happen. The needs of the federal public service will be determined by the employer, who will decide, “In this area, there will be cuts. In that area, there will be increases”. The employer will proceed without necessarily having the support of the union and without necessarily consulting the union.

It would have been proper to recognize the unions by saying that there should be an agreement or negotiations between the two parties before any cut or increase in service went ahead. As I said before, is anybody in a better position than workers to assess that? They are the ones who are doing the work day in and day out.

As for the power to determine job qualifications, I have also seen that abused. I have seen job ads that practically say, “We are looking for a 25-year-old woman”. It was fair as long as it did not state that the qualifications also included blond hair and blue eyes.

A good number of people are automatically disqualified. So, employers can determine the job qualifications, and in doing so they can also choose the person they want for the job. If this is not the employer being arbitrary, then I do not know what it is.

There is also the whole issue of merit. Who is going to assess merit? The bill refers to essential qualifications. The employer is the one who determines them, and then the employer will say that a person cannot be hired because he or she does not merit the position. Obviously, we will be told that if employees are not happy, all they have to do is file a grievance. However, given what I explained earlier regarding the grievance process, the employee will suffer the injustice for years before an arbitrator rules that he or she is right or wrong. I am citing these examples to demonstrate that all of the powers are in the hands of the employer.

As for psychological harassment, there is an employee from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency who lives in my riding and works in Lacolle. He has seen me regularly because he has been subject to psychological harassment for years because of his political convictions. This person had to put up with systematic abuse from his employer as well as other workers who had the same political beliefs as his employer, and treated him terribly. This person could complain to his immediate supervisor at the regional level until he was blue in the face, nothing changed.

I would have liked to talk about whistleblowers and provisions to protect those who witness abuse in government. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain any such provisions, and the amendments to include them were all rejected.

The same applies to official languages. Contrary to the Act to promote physical activity and sport, there are no provisions on official languages in this bill.

Lastly, we moved almost 120 amendments to try to improve this bill. The Liberals rejected them all.

To close, for all the above reasons, the Bloc Quebecois does not support Bill C-25, and we will vote against it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-25, but we see that the government is not interested in the deliberations at this time, so I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Terrebonne--Blainville for raising that aspect of Bill C-25 in terms of the impact on our public service and what makes our public service a great public service. The member has often raised in this place issues on behalf of the interests of women, particularly with regard to abuse and harassment, and in this regard harassment in the workplace.

I do not think there is any disagreement in any quarter of the House that harassment of employees, regardless of gender quite frankly, is unacceptable. However the member will also know that we cannot legislate behaviour.

The member's final comments indicated that the responsible approach is education, because people do not know. It is not just those who would perpetrate harassment who have not been sensitized to the fact that their actions are harassing in nature, but also those who are harassed may not recognize or understand what they can do or how it should be done.

I will accept the member's representations with regard to the number of cases that may not have been resolved quickly. I agree with her that to go to court takes far too long to resolve those kinds of issues. We should also be aware that two years ago in the last collective agreement with PSAC, $7 million was allocated for a joint training program for employees and for so-called management on this very subject.

It raises the question as to whether it is the Government of Canada that should take these steps or the Public Service Commission and the employee representation that should raise those issues more forcefully, or continue to raise them more forcefully, so that programs, as necessary, will be implemented to mitigate and attempt to eliminate harassment in the workplace.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is truly an extraordinary opportunity for me to express my view this morning on Bill C-25. It is a bill that interests me tremendously, especially because its purpose is to change the culture in the public service.

Treasury Board wants to use this bill to deal with the constant reduction of the work force in the public service and the growing competition from the private sector.

With this bill, the government believes it could overcome problems relating to representation, the aging staff and professional skills.

Finally, the purpose of this bill is to improve the public's perception of the public service. There seems to be little interest in having a career in the public service because of its bad reputation. This results in poor recruitment. The goal of this bill is to change the approach with regard to the public's view of the public service.

It is also a substantial bill. We would have preferred to debate it in parts since it deals with human beings, the men and women in this work force that we are to manage, or the government is to manage.

It includes amendments, among other things, to the Financial Administration Act. This bill will also improve accountability through the tabling of reports. The President of the Treasury Board is required to prepare reports on the administration of the legislation in terms of human resources management, a report on the obligations that stem from the Employment Equity Act, and a report on the Treasury Board's powers under the Public Service Employment Act.

I felt the need to list these points simply to establish the purpose of this bill. We are disappointed because we know these objectives will not be met. This legislation is meant to make working in the public service an attractive prospect. Again, we doubt very much that these objectives will be met.

I will discuss two points, the amendments made to the Public Service Employment Act, and the fact that it is incumbent on the government as a responsible employer to ensure a healthy work environment where its employees are treated with dignity and respect.

My attention was immediately drawn to one particular provision, that is paragraph 30(2)( b ) of the Public Service Employment Act, which reads as follows:

—the Commission is satisfied that the person to be appointed meets the essential qualifications for the work to be performed, as established by the deputy head, including official language proficiency.

The Bloc Quebecois proposed an amendment to change this paragraph by deleting the word essential. We believe that the candidate should meet all the qualifications. Limiting the requirement to essential qualifications creates ambiguity regarding the proficiency level required. In other words, essential could be construed to mean minimal proficiency, and not maximum proficiency.

We fear that the deputy head or any senior official could make patronage appointments either by setting requirements that only one person can meet or by selecting among the candidates one who meets the essential qualifications without necessarily being the best candidate.

I would like to draw attention to a program concerning employment equity in the public service. In 1998, the government set up a temporary, four-year program which ended last year: the Employment Equity Positive Measures Program. This program provided the tools to support the aggressive application of employment equity principles in the workplace, thereby enhancing the representation of the four designated groups, that is, women, aboriginals, persons with disabilities and visible minorities.

This program also provided additional resources, services and funding to help departments and agencies turn their good intentions into lasting results.

The program costs were $10 million annually, which means that over four years, they totalled $40 million. This was to help the public service modernize, among other things. Imagine. Through this program, the Public Service Commission's centre for excellence was established and supported. Also, an electronic tool was developed in connection with employment equity positive practices.

When we talk about the public service and modernization, this is a first step. The bill before us does not include any of the outcomes of the Employment Equity Positive Measures Program, which cost $40 million.

This program included four components, three of which were managed and delivered by the Public Service Commission on behalf of the Treasury Board Secretariat. One was the Employment Equity Partnership Fund, the purposes of which were first to build the capacity for employment equity, second to promote a workplace which is supportive, and third to improve representativeness of the workforce and of course to improve retraining.

How is it that, after a program that cost $40 million and delivered a series of suggestions and proposals from public servants, none of this is to be found in the bill before us?

This bill does not guarantee that all the work that has been done through the Employment Equity Positive Measures Program to improve the representativeness and the distribution of designated groups will go on, since the word essential in clause 30(2)( b ) will create confusion.

We spent $40 million to try to include people, train them, give them a position in the public service, but with the addition of this tiny word, essential, to the statement of qualifications, these people will not be able to benefit from employment equity. From now on, it will be a matter of choice, and officials will decide which qualifications are essential.

The basic requirements and the best skills will not necessarily be a factor. How sure can we be that we will protect these four designated groups under the Employment Equity Act? One has to wonder.

Before moving on to the other component, I would just like to point out to our colleague from Mississauga East, who has just spoken, that the Public Service Alliance sent us a little document on the eve of International Women's Day: an advertisement from the Monday, February 17 issue of Hill Times . It contains a demonstration to the effect that not everything to do with employment equity is necessarily respected—at any rate, not the wishes of Treasury Board as far as employment equity is concerned.

They told us that their union represents approximately 1,600 workers at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the majority of whom are women. In that department, they calculated the numbers of women and men, and realized that at the ministerial level there were five men and one woman, in addition to one secretary. There were three parliamentary secretaries, two men and one woman. In the minister's office there were four men and no women. As for assistant deputy ministers, there were six men and two women. This is all very revealing. In Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act, perhaps the four designated groups ought to have been taken into account.

Now, I have a question, which I might have liked to ask the minister. When she drafted this bill, did she take into consideration the gender analysis. According to Status of Women Canada, this year $11 million were made available to the departments to do a gender analysis, in order to know how to draft legislation to reflect what is due to men and to women.

I wonder: with $40 million here and $11 million there, it seems there is money available. Yet there is no money to invest in our work force. Our colleague from Mississauga East has just said that public servants should be considered part of the solution. Indeed, they must be considered people, human beings entitled to a healthy environment.

I will continue with the second part of my speech, which deals with harassment. The Bloc Quebecois is very concerned about the concept of harassment that may exist in the workplace; indeed, psychological harassment should have been included in the provisions relating to this phenomenon.

With regard to this type of harassment in the public service, the latest numbers tell us that more than 21% of Canadian public servants are affected by harassment. Formal written complaints have been made. How many people in the federal public service do not dare to say a word because they are confronted with this famous oath of allegiance, the oath of confidentiality on what is happening within departments? This is a two edged sword. This famous oath of allegiance says that nothing that happens in the workplace must get beyond the workplace. A a result, people keep their mouths shut, say noything and go on being harassed.

I will get back later to the definition of psychological harassment. This type of harassment must be known and acknowledged by public service managers. The Bloc Quebecois had proposed amendments that would have made the implementation of the policy mandatory for each of the departments.

So I will give you a short definition of psychological harassment. It may happen through words, actions and behaviours that tend to put employees down, to belittle them by treating them as subordinates, to prevent them from getting ahead.

This form of violence shows up as workplace harassment, the abuse of power and the abuse of authority.

A little study was done. There is, of course a policy to deal with psychological harassment on the job, or harassment in the workplace. This policy originates with Treasury Board; it was introduced in 1994 and modernized in 2001. We might expect that, if there is a policy issued by the Treasury Board Secretariat, it would be applied everywhere, in all departments. Unfortunately, it was found that of 83 departments, only 7 truly applied the Treasury Board policy. The 76 others have their own policies, and it is not clear to what extent they apply any policy.

Each of these departments has different methods. Sometimes, the policy is applied or action is taken when there is a formal complaint; in other departments, when there are oral complaints, they are dealt with. But that is the extent of it.

I would simply like to remind the House that in terms of harassment, if the process does not work at the departmental level, the person being harassed cannot charge the harasser. Those who are harassed become isolated, fall silent, fall ill, and that costs Treasury Board money.

Many of these policies are incomplete. They do not specify the timeframe within which managers must resolve a case of harassment. Several cases were brought to our attention and, in each instance, managers did not act diligently. Quite often, managers are unaware of this policy.

Also, many harassment complaints have yet to be resolved. Some fall under directive 255, from 1994, and others come under the new policy that came into force on June 1, 2001. If these complaints remain unresolved, it is because many managers and public servants have little or no interest in respecting other people or their rights.

Some 40% of departments adopted in full the policy as of June 2001. When I say 40% adopted it, they did so in writing, but only seven departments apply it. This is significant. It means that there are public servants—over 30%, according to our figures—who are being harassed and do not report it. It could be vertical harassment, meaning by their bosses, or it could be horizontal, meaning by co-workers. Unfortunately, the new bill makes no mention of this.

In closing, I want to say that it is surprising that Bill C-25, which seeks among other things a change in culture and the improvement of labour-management relations, does not ensure a more effective application of the policy on the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace.

If the minister truly wants to change the culture of the public service, if she wants to make it an attractive place to work, she must ensure, among other things, the continuity of the employment equity positive measures program, which cost $40 million. She should ensure, as a responsible employer, that all employees have access to a workplace that is not only free of harassment, but that recognizes the existence of harassment and that implements measures and ethical practices to protect workers, like any other responsible employer.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-25, the public service modernization act.

Before I start I want to congratulate the minister, the minister's staff and all those who have participated in the development of the legislation. I also want to thank every public servant who works for the Government of Canada. I am sure members will agree with me that this country is well-served by the fine, high quality public servants who keep the government functioning and who provide quality service to Canadians.

The government has put tremendous effort into bringing about an act to, as one might say, put the house in order. Some of the key objectives of the bill are to ensure a transparent hiring process in the public service, to look at the issue of merit in the public service, to improve employee-employer relations, to deal with issues affecting the services that we provide Canadians and many other issues that will render the public service even more efficient in the way it conducts its business.

However, like every legislation that comes before the House, it goes to committee and consultation. As well, witnesses appear before committees with ideas and suggestions.

I must admit, Mr. Speaker, I am standing before you today a bit late with what I have to put before the House basically because the information came to my attention at a very late hour. It was after the House dealt with the report stage of Bill C-25, as well as after the committee had the chance to deal with the bill.

I had a meeting last week with a representative of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Mr. Edward Cashman, who is the regional executive vice-president for the national capital region who was elected to this position. I want to congratulate him on his election and that of his colleagues who came with him to make a presentation concerning Bill C-25.

This was the first interaction I had with the representatives of the union on these issues. As far as I was concerned, there was widespread support for the bill. In essence, I concluded that because my office had not received any kind of a communication to the contrary. We did not receive the amount of calls we normally would have received on legislation that comes before the House.

Nonetheless, that is not to say that the concerns raised by Mr. Cashman, on behalf of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, are not important concerns for which the House needs to take note.

I have promised Mr. Cashman two things. The first was that I would put on the record some of the concerns that his group outlined and brought to my attention, and that I would speak with the minister and her office with regard to the points that the union reps raised.

The points that were raised were in three categories. One of the issues the union people raised dealt with merit. They were concerned that the changes to merit could create a situation where there could be abuse by managers when it came to staffing.

The second point raised by the union rep concerned essential services and the issue of voting. On the issue of essential services, they wanted to know what would constitute an essential service employee.

The union also had a concern on the notion of voting. If there is a strike vote, the union is mandated to notify all those who are in the work unit. Members of the union told me that this might be somewhat problematic in that in some cases when a strike vote is called they may or may not be able to communicate with every person who works in the unit simply because some of them may not be members of the union. As a result of that, they may have difficulties dealing with this issue.

I have raised all three points with the minister and she has assured me that, first, she is willing to meet with the union rep at the earliest possible opportunity; and second, she is eager to ensure that once the bill goes through the House and the policy is introduced to do the implementation, the employee reps will be included in the consultation process that will be taking place and that in fact their views will be heard. The minister is willing to address some of the points and hopefully she will provide answers that will meet the interests of the public servants, both in terms of employees as well as employers.

On the notion of merit, I have been told that the merit laws, by virtue of this legislation, have been made stronger than they were before.The clause that has been included in the legislation would not only ensure that employees meet the minimum and basic requirements, but that the employer looks for additional qualifications the potential employee may have, such as language skills, level of education and other talents that might be of use in the public service. It not only talks about the minimum requirements, which would bring it into harmony with what existed before, but it goes beyond that.

In other words, I wanted the employee to score a certain percentage, but also I wanted it to go beyond that. If they have the qualifications and could score even more that would be an asset and that would be taken into consideration. This was the explanation the minister provided to me. It is a positive thing to consider and to look at in a positive fashion.

However, in addition to that, I have been informed that in the event the agent of the employee, which is the union, has a concern about a specific item it would still have the ability to appeal it or question it. In this particular case I think it is a positive thing. It would give the employee rep the opportunity to question in the event something like that takes place.

The second concern raised by Mr. Cashman deals with the potential for abuse by an employer. Provisions in the act make it difficult for an employer to do that. In essence it strengthens the merit clause and makes it literally impossible for an employer to abuse its position. Should that take place, then the employee representative as well as the employee would have provisions under Bill C-25 to appeal and go to the next step.

I would like to raise the points of union representatives specifically and put them on the record for the interest of the House. While I know we are in third reading and there is no provision to introduce any type of amendment at this stage, I want to put them on the record because I promised Mr. Cashman I would do so.

In the section that deals with prohibitions and enforcement, division 14, the union asked for the following:

That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by deleting lines 11 to 17 on page 84.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by deleting line 20 on page 84 and replacing it with: “189(1) or section 195 is guilty of an”.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by deleting line 28 to 29 on page 84 and replacing them with: “contravenes section”.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 2 be amended by deleting lines 7 to 11 on page 85.

Then we move on to the merit clause. In essence the union would liked to have sees the following:

That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by deleting line 15 on page 126 and replacing it with: “person to be appointed meets the”.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by deleting lines 19 to 29 on page 126.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by deleting line 6 on page 127 and replacing it with: “graph 30(2)(a)”.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 128 and replacing them with: “paragraph 30(2)(a)”.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 40 and 41 on page 128 with: “-cations referred to in paragraph 30(2)(a), other than language”.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by deleting lines 7 to 16 on page 129.

That Bill C-25 in Clause 12 be amended by deleting lines 34 to 40 on page 129.

All these amendments would have been in order if they had been made at the committee level. If in the event a member of Parliament was unable to introduce them under special circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you could have made a ruling whereby the amendments could have been introduced in the House during report stage.

Unfortunately that was not the case. The amendments did not come in at a time where it could have been possible to introduce them, either at committee or at report stage. Therefore, for the interest of the House, I have tabled them here. There may have been other amendments that did not come to my attention, and I would suggest that as the bill sees its way through the House on the way to the Senate, that the union representative will have an opportunity at that time to go to the Senate and make those suggestions there.

However I would like to stress the importance of the union working with members of Parliament on both sides of the House, like it happened in this case. Unfortunately, it arrived at the last minute.

I hope in the future the relations between both the employee representatives and the employers will move to the next step, and that is a positive cooperation, a dialogue, a cohesive interaction whereby the minister will be informed at an early stage when legislation is about to come before the House and where a discussion will take place in an atmosphere of willingness to move things forward in the best interests of both the union and the government.

I remember the Prime Minister once stating that the government looked at its public servants as being a part of the solution, not part of the problem. That is really what has defined the government, what has defined the actions of this minister and what has defined the actions of all members on this side of the House. We look at the public service employees as being a part of the solution. They are a part of the team that makes the country so great, one of the greatest countries in the world.

Having said all that, it is my hope that this legislation will go through the House and that at the earliest possible opportunity the union representatives will take the minister on her offer, which she made to me yesterday, to meet with them. The minister is willing to talk specifically with regard to the concerns that have been brought to my attention and that I have brought to the attention of the minister on their behalf. Specifically, they deal with some of the details and clarifications that are required in my view to bring about a positive conclusion to this legislation.

This is long overdue. We know the Auditor General raised a number of concerns dealing with the public service act and some of the provisions within that act. I am happy to see this coming before Parliament at a very opportune time, not only to deal with the concerns raised by the Auditor General in her latest report but to address some of the issues which need to be addressed as well.

I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. I thank both the government as well as the union for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Gander--Grand Falls will have eight minutes remaining when the debate resumes on Bill C-25.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting some days to come into the House, to sit and listen to some of the debate and to see from where people are coming.

The public service sector really does not care if they swear allegiance to the Queen, themselves, their mothers or their fathers. What they care about is ensuring that government leaves it up to the people to be hired in the proper form, in the proper manner and that friends, neighbours and political interference is gone so the public service can do the job they are required to do, and that is to serve the people of this country and make it is easier for them to get the job done. For one reason or another, we forget about that and we worry about to whom we will swear allegiance.

As parliamentarians we swear to the Queen because that is our job and we do it. The public service should swear to the people for whom they will do the work, and that is the taxpayers. Who cares if they swear an allegiance to other people.

I was not going to say that but I thought it was interesting to hear the debate.

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 actually requires a department to go through a maze of several months of paperwork and meetings to hire an ordinary person.

If we were to get rid of the red tape, if we were to make it easier to get people into vacant jobs, we would not hear the outcry from the general public. People say that they cannot get any answers, or they cannot get a job done or there are delays. Every time there is a delay in the public service of getting an answer or getting the job done, it costs business people and ordinary citizens money.

Bill C-25 would provide for more flexibility in staffing and in managing people. Managers with certain limits would have more power over hiring and who they hire, just like in the real world. Applicants who felt they had been short-changed in the staff process would be given access to redress at a public service staffing tribunal.

The key should be that employers get the best qualified people to do the job, regardless of where they come from geographically. The key is we must get people in the public service who can do the job. If we limit it to certain areas and friends or friends of friends, it normally does not work. Any businessman or businesswoman will tell us that hiring friends or friends of friends normally does not work. If we had hired people because of their qualifications, we would not have had half the problems we now have.

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 the job like those who do it every day. If the intent of the bill follows through, we should have a happier federal workplace.

When employees are happy campers, they do better jobs. If they come to work every day and are under pressure, they will not perform to full expectations, and the only people who lose are the employers. If staff members and employees are involved in decision making, we will have a happier staff.

The bill provides for an overhaul and consolidation of the staff training and development process of the federal public service.

Many of the changes are long overdue with regard to 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.

I can just reflect back to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Right now we have two airport strikes on the go. If these airports had employees under the federal government's control, I would suggest there may not be strikes today. We got rid of some of our public servants because we got rid of our airports. If the airports had come under the umbrella of the federal government employees, I firmly believe there could have been an easier settlement, and we would not have the travelling public held at ransom because of these strikes.

If we are going to allow individuals and special interest groups to take over our airports then we should make sure we keep our employee base intact so they can provide the services the general public requires rather than contracting the services out to a new group. That could result in one strike after another and it could last a long period of time. It would be like what we are seeing in Newfoundland and Labrador right now. I am glad to hear that things may be working out but it has taken a long time.

Many public servants are about to retire. We have been told that 7,000 new people are needed every year just to keep pace with retirements. The hiring process can lumber on for months and we often see the best and brightest applicants being scooped up by the private sector. As I stated earlier, we must make the hiring process easier and get rid of the red tape so we do not lose some of our brightest to the private sector. People have a great future with the federal and provincial governments. We have to make it easier on the federal scene to make sure that application access and individual rights are easily looked at so the best possible person is hired regardless of geographics.

It is also 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 day. One of the things I would add to that is the importance of their justifying why they hired a person so that the fear and threat that they will hire a friend will be eliminated. Hiring has to be done on qualifications. If it is done on qualifications, then I firmly believe production in the workplace will be greater.

This extra power on the part of managers has been met with a strong grievance procedure. Managers must be required to account for their hiring decisions. Hiring people because of political pressure is forbidden. Hiring friends who do not meet the basic qualifications is not allowed. This is where we get ourselves in trouble. This is where we do not get the best bang for our buck. This is where we run into major problems later on down the road when we find out that the best qualified person was not the one hired or the person hired was not qualified in the first place.

The hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester has done a tremendous job asking questions and bringing up many concerns regarding the federal public service, the job situation and the hiring practices. Every time he raises the issue it seems like some people take it as a joke. It is a very serious thing when a line is drawn in the geographics of Canada where people can only apply for jobs in certain areas. As far as I am concerned this is discriminatory. This is Canada, and it should not be like that. If someone lives in Nova Scotia, it is discrimination if they cannot apply for a job in Quebec, Alberta, Newfoundland or the reverse. As long as someone fulfills the maximum qualifications for a job they should be the person with the utmost opportunity to get the job. If people are hired with minimum qualifications, they are getting in through the back door. If we are looking for a high standard we should stay with a high standard so people who are the most qualified will be hired.

I am sure the minister is aware that people in Atlantic Canada are faced with federal job advertisements that require applicants to be from certain geographical areas. In Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, a job opening in St. John's might be restricted to applicants from the Avalon Peninsula. People living in Gander or Labrador City could not apply. Many jobs in central Canada are only offered to applicants within restrictive geographical areas.

Shortly after being elected I had a phone call from a lady friend who said that she had applied for a job within the federal government but that she was outside the geographical area. She could not understand that and I told her that I could not understand it either. I thought that when someone lived in Canada they could apply anywhere in Canada if a job came up with the federal government. If they are the most qualified person then they should get the job. However it did not happen. Like everything else, we learn by some of these hidden rules.

In the January 30, 2001 Speech from the Throne, the government committed to needed reforms in the Public Service of Canada to attract and develop the talent needed to serve Canadians into the 21st century. It is now 2003, two years after that statement was made in the throne speech. What happened to the commitment over the last two years? Why, all of a sudden, is it being done now? It should have been done by now. A lot of opportunities have been missed for our young people. We have missed an opportunity to have great service, an even better service for Canada. I do not know what happened, but unfortunately the commitment to modernize the public service took a holiday as did the commitment to end child poverty.

In February the President of the Treasury Board said that the bill ensures the capacity of the public service to provide the best service to Canadians today and into the future. This is where the government has it wrong again. Bills do not ensure top quality service; people do; hard workers do; people who are proud to serve their country in any capacity.

Bills tabled in Parliament with the accompanying fanfare do not ensure anything. It is the people we hire who do. It all goes back to the employees. It all goes back to whom we hire and how they fit into the system. The only way they can fit into the system is if we hire the people who are qualified for the job.

Canadians will get top-notch service from the public service once the government does the same. Treating Canadians with respect and truly serving them begins with the government, not with a bill. Once the government gets its act in place, the public service will follow suit.

There are a lot of public servants in the federal government who provide an amazing service way beyond the call of duty, but the problem on a lot of occasions is the bureaucracy. When I speak to people all across the country, they tell me the only problem they have is trying to get the bureaucrats to understand the way things should be done. Employees do the work in a certain way because they have been instructed that is the way it is done.

As I said a few minutes ago, if we are to do the job right for the federal public servants, we have to make sure that we hire the right people. If we are serious about modernizing the act, let us modernize it for the future. We should get rid of all the red tape. We should open it up to all of Canada. We should forget to whom people will swear allegiance.

We should be making sure that confidentiality is important. We should make sure that people's business is not known out in the street. It is also important that if public servants find out about problems in the government, they have the right to tell politicians, so that we can make it a better place for everyone. If there are things going on that should not be going on, it adds stress to the federal government's purse.

It also adds stress for MPs because we get calls on certain things and we know there are problems, but we cannot fix them because people are afraid to come forward. When people are afraid to come forward, it is total craziness in the workplace and people get stressed out. Then people go on sick leave. They are not content because they sometimes know there are things going on that should not be going on.

Time is short and there is a lot that could be said, but I just wanted to stress some things I have observed while listening to the debate.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud member of the Parliament of Canada, a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen of Canada as the head of state. Today is the 50th anniversary of the coronation of our Queen.

It gave me no pleasure to vote against Bill C-25 last week, the proposed public service modernization act. I did so for one reason only and it was because the oath of allegiance to our monarch has been removed. I find the continuing erosion of our constitutional monarchy, the finest form of governance on the face of the earth, completely unacceptable.

I would like to remind the President of the Treasury Board that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has declared that the proposed oath of citizenship in Bill C-18 will retain a pledge of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. In fact, it would read:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country’s rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

I am in no way opposed to the idea of reforming the public service. I am opposed to the chipping away at the basis of our institutional framework. It is a slippery slope and I fear that, after one little chip here and one little chip there, in 20 or 50 years the bedrock of the Canadian system will be gone and we will pretend not to know how it happened.

The constitutional monarchy is part of our Constitution, history and heritage. I remind all members that the head of state of Canada is the Queen of Canada. When public servants swear their oath to the Queen, our head of state, they are swearing it to Canada. The oath does not involve the Queen in her personal capacity but rather as the symbol of our country, our Constitution and our traditions. Some might argue that the monarchy is no longer relevant, but I fail to see how it could not be relevant. As members of Parliament, we take the oath, which reads:

I [full name of member] do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Without taking the oath, we cannot even take our place in the House.

Public servants hold positions of public trust. By taking an oath, they are pledging to conduct themselves in the best interests of the country. It reminds the person taking the oath of the serious obligations and responsibilities that he or she is assuming. Not for a minute am I suggesting that Canada has some kind of backward colonial mentality. I would argue that the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty serves a useful function in three ways.

First, it reaffirms to the public servant that responsibility and accountability are vertical concepts. The authority of a public servant derives from the Queen. There is a vertical chain of command that must be respected in the form of advice that makes its way up through the ranks to Her Majesty or representative, and in the form of orders and instructions that must be executed that make their way down through the ranks. Public servants are ultimately accountable to the Crown, not just the public, the minister or their manager.

Second, the oath of office is an important initiation ceremony. Just as we ask new citizens to take the oath, we ask those who wish to join our legal and administrative institutions to make a personal commitment by taking the oath. Third, by removing the oath of allegiance the basic framework of our system of government is undermined. Only last year the Department of Canadian Heritage, through the golden jubilee celebrations, played a terrific role in filling the gaps in our knowledge and appreciation of our distinct constitutional heritage.

Allow me to remind the House what the Minister of Canadian Heritage said when she launched the federal golden jubilee initiatives. She said:

Fifty years after her accession to the throne, Elizabeth II remains a symbol of continuity, stability and tradition in a world that is under a barrage of constant change. Canadians of my generation have known only a single sovereign, faithful and loyal to our people.

The Queen and the heritage she gives to us is not just a part of our past but part of our common future. As a mature country, we do not need to break our ties with the past. The oath of allegiance fulfills an important function. We should take this opportunity to send this back to the committee so it can be reconsidered for the sake of consistency with the member's oath and with other government bills, like Bill C-18, which expressly mentions Her Majesty in the oath. It is unfortunate that that will not happen now.

The Ottawa Citizen is against dropping the oath of allegiance. An editorial on February 17 stated:

The monarchy is symbolic of the continuity of Canada's constitutional government, and the Queen is our head of state. It's not too much to ask that those who choose to serve the public be reminded of that by having to swear allegiance to Her Majesty.

Let me remind my Alliance colleagues across the floor what the member for St. Albert said:

At the same time, if our public servants are not required to swear to the head of state that they would execute their office to the best of their ability, then what are we as a country?

I would also like to remind the members of the fourth party in the House what their leader, who was then the member for Calgary Centre, wrote to a concerned Canadian, “I can assure you that I and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada remain firm in our support of the Canadian constitutional structure and our support for the monarchy. The Queen, and indeed the entire monarchy, represent an important foundation of Canadian tradition and heritage, and have contributed to our country's formation and development in countless ways”.

I expect then that they would be concerned with the dropping of the oath of allegiance from Bill C-25 and would support returning it to committee for further consideration.

In these politically fractious times it is important that our civil service remain beyond the fray, always providing Parliament with the non-partisan professionalism that is renown around the world. As my friend from the NDP, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona, said:

[The Queen] symbolizes for many the merits of a constitutional monarchy in which the head of state...is separate and apart from the ongoing political struggles of the day.

It is a significant reminder to us in the House that politicians will come and go, but Parliament and the public service will remain. Swearing the oath of allegiance is an important reminder to our civil service. It is a symbol of the requirement for serving to the utmost of their abilities in the best interests of Canada.

There is talk about adopting principles to provide a framework for the public service. There were amendments to make the values upon which human resource management is based more explicit. Amendments to commit to transparency, linguistic duality, and the strengthening of the merit principle are all good things, but in modernizing the public service let us not throw away things that actually work, like the oath to our head of state.

As the public service moves from a rules based system to a value based system, it is important to have an organizational culture that articulates and lives the principles that are the basis of its everyday work. At the same time, the oath is an important symbol of initiation into that culture, and a personal and moral obligation to work to the best of one's ability.

The House does not have the opportunity to act and take responsibility for the legislation proposed by the government because of the motion now on the floor by the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

I thank God there is the other place where amendments may be made in sober second thought and I pray that never again will we find our constitutional monarchy diminished or otherwise altered without full national debate. Let this mischief be now ended.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude on this point. The difficulty is that if we incorporate a rewrite of an existing bill or existing act of Parliament, an existing law of the country, into a proposed bill, changes are being made from the existing legislation to what is in Bill C-25 which are not evident on their face unless we get supplementary binders.

I would like to quote from one of these binders, which shows the proposed text with regard to the oath or affirmation of office. It gives the proposed text, the current wording, and the explanation. This particular change would eliminate “so help me God” from the oath of office for public servants. I wanted to change that and in fact at committee stage I got it changed to get it back in. The explanation states that it had been removed to reflect the diversity of the Canadian public and respect for different religious beliefs.

We can imagine what it is like when we have to go through three binders of this. With all the work we have to do, it becomes very problematic. This is not a good model to follow in terms of legislation. I would ask Parliament and I would ask the House leaders and the government House leader to ensure that when bills come to this place we are not faced with a situation where parliamentarians cannot do an adequate job on the legislation. We cannot do our job when we are faced with pressure to get bills through but not given the time.

I have mentioned the oath. Let me say that not only was I disturbed that the oath eliminated reference to “so help me God”, but also disturbed that it eliminated reference to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

People have different views on the monarchy, but today is the 50th anniversary of the coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, today we have a new coin coming out with the new image of the Queen on it, and today we are debating a bill that eliminates reference to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

The last time I looked, Mr. Speaker, this was the Parliament of Canada, based on the parliamentary model of Britain, Parliament being the Queen through her representative the Governor General, together with the Senate, and together with the House of Commons. That is Parliament. How is it that a bill could eliminate reference to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II without our having a debate in this place? We wanted to have a debate here. The Queen has been to Canada 22 times since she became Queen. That alone tells me that Queen Elizabeth II loves Canada, and from the reaction of Canadians when she comes here, it is clear that Canadians love Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

If we are going to change oaths, we have to change them in a transparent way. There was an attempt to move a motion before debate to have the bill sent back to committee so that it could reconsider eliminating the reference to Her Majesty in the legislation. However, there is now a motion before us that the question be now put. That prohibits anybody else from putting a motion to the House.

However, I am aware of at least three different items in the legislation that have to be repaired. Clauses 118 and 119 are inconsistent and have to be repaired. There is one clause in which the reference to “so help me God” has still not been reinstated because of a technicality at committee, which should be remedied. I think the House should have an opportunity to debate whether or not references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II should be eliminated, rather than after only four speakers at third reading being pre-empted from making a motion to that effect.

I really believe that omnibus bills are not very helpful to parliamentarians. They allow us to get through the back door what we cannot get through the front door. If Canadians and parliamentarians at large knew that the references to God and to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II were being summarily taken out of the oaths of office, given what we did with a private member's bill recently and the Citizenship Act, why is it that Parliament cannot debate here in the House what our oath should be in Canada? Where are our values?

Let me refer to today's Ottawa Citizen , in which I was absolutely amazed and delighted to see an editorial that stated:

Her Majesty is the embodiment of an institutional order that allows us to be the kind of nation that we are.

It went on to state that “the Crown represents order and justice...as an institution that transcends politics”. In short, the Crown is the “guardian of law and liberty”.

I believe that we should have an opportunity to discuss this in an open and transparent way and therefore I would propose a motion. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of Parliament to withdraw the motion now before the House and to recommit the bill back to committee to reconsider the elimination of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II from the oath of office.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate Bill C-25, a bill to modernize the 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.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, we had an opportunity to review the bill which was forwarded to us by the House. It has been 40 years since these acts have been looked at and amended. I think a good question for members to pose would be why it has taken so long, particularly since there are so many substantive amendments that are considered in the bill.

In addition, a special task force was formed to research and make recommendations with regard to the changes in the bill, and to make other proposals which would deal with the structure of the bill.

I want to talk briefly about the structure and the way in which Bill C-25 was put together because it caused substantial concern at committee stage.

Clause 2 of the bill states “ The Public Service Labour Relations Act is enacted as follows”. Bill C-25 is a bill that has within it two other bills which currently exist. Part 1 attempts to enact the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which already exists. We also find amendments at the end of the bill which in fact would repeal the existing act. We will find similarly in another clause a rewrite of the Public Service Employment Act. Again the existing Public Service Employment Act is repealed.

We also have consequential amendments to other acts, the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act. This is the first time I have come across a bill that is structured in this fashion. If we look for instance at clause 2, clause 2 in itself is actually an entire bill. It is an entire bill with each of the clauses that we would find in a bill on a stand-alone basis, and similarly for clause 11 in the bill on the rewrite of the Public Service Employment Act.

When the committee did its work we considered about 120 amendments put forward by the opposition. We worked through a number of other amendments from the government one at a time. It took a great deal of time.

Since the task force had been formulated and it was making recommendations to the Privy Council Office with regard to how we were going to proceed on this, a number of questions were raised for outside experts to comment on. One of the questions had to do with the hierarchy that was contemplated for the public service.

There are three elements within this whole regime of the public service: the Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and the public service itself. One of the areas we discussed had to do with why they decided to have a hybrid responsibility for the Public Service Commission, where it had auditing responsibilities, i.e. management responsibilities, in addition to having those representing the employees and, as with the other unions, representing the best interests of employees and protecting their interests vis-à-vis the laws of the land.

Questions were asked. I do not want to get into the details but there was a point at which information and copies of letters for which we had asked in order to better understand why certain decisions were taken to structure the bill, Bill C-25, in a fashion that put two other bills entirely within Bill C-25, were denied to the committee.

The response we received was that they were privileged documents that the committee could not see. I think this was one of the first opportunities that a committee had basically challenged the privacy, the confidentiality or the protection of documents. As a result, I put forward the motion in committee to suspend our clause by clause proceedings so we could pursue the acquisition of documents that we thought were relevant to our consideration of Bill C-25.

I am pleased to say that it did not take very long for the Privy Council Office to provide us with a complete binder of documents. I read all the documents that were received. Unless one is a management consultant, a labour relations consultant, an employee consultant and every other kind of expert we can imagine in terms of expertise related to the public service, it is a very difficult to appreciate the insights that these people were giving to the government with regard to how to structure the bill.

However I am glad we were able to get those documents because it helped me to understand that the experts had some concern about having a hybrid role for the Public Service Commission. They felt that since the legislation related to the public service, which had not been dealt with for some 40 years, that the culture had been so deeply rooted, so deeply embedded in the system that it would be extremely difficult for us to get exactly to where we wanted to be over the long term in the best interest of the structure for the benefit of the public service.

Ultimately, the recommendations and some of the documents that I read were basically saying that this was as far as we could push it. I think this was the first time that I realized there was some concern about how the public service would receive the changes to the legislation.

The issues were: could the public servants take it? Would they take the change? Would they accept it? Would they embrace it? Would it be able to cause a paradigm shift or a cultural shift? Would it be able to break the very deep roots of the way the system had been operating?

We know there were situations within the hiring practices of the public service that it was easier to hire people on a part time or on a contract basis than it was on a full time basis. It was shorter. It could in fact get people quicker.

I guess the bottom line was that we needed a human body to be in that role, to do that job and to make sure all the responsibilities were discharged very quickly. This was endemic of the kind of problems that it had incurred over the period within the public service, t this culture of how it operated, and I think the word “cynicism” was used , and there were questions.

I asked questions about whether the public service would accept the kinds of changes that were being asked, changes to concepts such as merit and whistleblowers, political involvement. Everyone knows that public service involvement in the political process at various levels is an issue that has been dealt with in the bill and it has been controversial over the years. I think there are now guidelines which people will understand.

As a consequence I am very comfortable with the steps that have been taken. I concluded and I think the committee members concluded that carrying the public service modernization process at least to this extent, this step forward, was all that we should do at this time and that every intent is that we will continue to look for ways to improve the administration of the public service and the relationship between the employer and the employees, and to further clarify the role of the Public Service Commission.

I should say as well that the committee was very interested in working with members of the Public Service Commission, who were very active and well represented at the hearings. They provided input to the committee and they addressed a number of concerns they had. It was very clear that the issues being raised were tremendously complex and broad because we were dealing not only with the modernization of certain aspects, but with the modernization of two existing acts and consequential amendments to others.

The bill is not an easy bill to deal with. Therefore part of my intervention today is to suggest to the House and to the leaderships of the parties that bills in this form do not do Parliament a good service. They are too complex and too detailed to ask parliamentarians to get into. It is like an omnibus bill. It deals with far too many things: labour relations, the Employment Act, amendments to the Financial Administration Act and to a number of other acts.

When we get into that level of detail and go through the various processes that we go through, with the limitations that parliamentarians have to study this information, it becomes very problematic for members of Parliament to discharge their responsibilities as committee members simply because there is not enough time allotted to the process and questioning of witnesses to examine all the areas relevant to the bill. It is clear to me that this, if I did not know better, was an attempt to make absolutely sure that we could not get into it in the detail that we should have.

The bill should have been at least two, if not three, separate bills. However I do understand that there is a sense of urgency, that we want a bill to go forward very quickly because it has been a long time. However if it has taken 40 years to get around to modernizing the public service legislation and two years for a task force, that clearly reflects how long it takes to do the job properly.

I am concerned about the process, the form of the bill and the fact that two bills are buried in it. Members should grab the bill and look through it. If they are told to look at clause 19, they should be very careful because clause 19 appears three times.

Committees of the House

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to be speaking on Bill C-25, but as one of the members has raised a motion to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to do with aquatic invasive species, uninvited guests, I took a copy of the report and had an opportunity to read a few of the areas.

The work the members have done on this report is excellent. In fact in one particular area, and that is with regard to zebra mussel control, it is a matter which I know quite a bit about because my daughter is in a masters program right now and is doing her thesis on zebra mussels in Lake Erie. She has done a lot of diving and is now analyzing her samples in the lab trying to look for some of the solutions.

If we were to take a copy of the current Maclean's magazine, we would see one of the beaches on Lake Erie that is totally covered with zebra mussels. It really dramatizes the significant problem that we have with unwanted species, or what the report calls, uninvited guests, what it means to other aquatic life and what it means to the peaceful and enjoyable use of our resources. Of course these so-called uninvited guests do in fact migrate by a number of means. It is a very serious problem.

I know the fisheries committee must have had a very important set of reviews and hearings on issues such as zebra mussels, sea lampreys and other aquatic species that are invasive species in our waterways.

I want to go back to the zebra mussels simply because I think it is probably worth giving a few more details. I note in the report that the zebra mussels are described as small molluscs about the size of a fingernail, and originally from the Black and Caspian Seas area. They spread through eastern Europe in the 18th century and in the mid-1980s in Lake St. Clair. They are believed to have been introduced by ballast water discharged from an ocean going vessel. That is important to understand. Obviously we need to have the kinds of rules and safeguards to ensure that we protect ourselves from the migration, naturally or by other means, of some of these invasive species into our systems because of the disruptive effect it has on the balance of the environment and the aquatic environment in Canada.

As well, these species, like the zebra mussel, are carried by boat traffic and normal flows of water, and the mussel has spread rapidly through the Great Lakes and beyond. This is one of the reasons why my daughter is undertaking this research on zebra mussels. It is very important that we find out, not only the damaging effect they have but what effect they have had on other species within not only the aquatic life but also the plant life as well. These are very critical issues.

The committee dealt with a number of issues. I note that it went right back to reports from the 1995 on the biodiversity convention, such as the Canadian biodiversity strategy released by Environment Canada. There were a number of government commitments in there and I thought it would be useful to advise members of the House of them if they have not had an opportunity to look at this. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is on the committee and probably will want to speak as well.

However issues such as developing and implementing effective means to identifying and monitoring alien organisms obviously makes some sense. Determining priorities for allocating resources for the control of harmful alien organisms based on their impact on native biodiversity and economic resources and implementing effective control, or where possible, eradication measures, obviously is a very important aspect where there are negative impacts identified. Also important is identifying and eliminating common sources of unintentional introductions.

When we consider the number of ships that we have in the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence from all around the world, ballast water can in fact contain alien species. Canadians would like to know what efforts we are taking to ensure that we are protecting our natural resources, the Great Lakes and other waterways.

A further recommendation in that biodiversity strategy was the development of national and international databases that would support the identification in anticipation of the introduction of potentially harmful alien organisms in order to develop and control prevention measures. That is an important aspect. That work has to be done because these things not only can happen, they have happened.

That is why we asked for our best and brightest to work on the science to find out how we can prevent or at least mitigate substantial damage.

Another recommendation was that we should ensure that there is adequate legislation and enforcement to control introductions or escapes of harmful alien organisms, and to improve preventive mechanisms such as screening standards and risk assessment procedures. This follows the other recommendations.

One of the other important areas was the recommendation to enhance public education and awareness of impacts of harmful alien organisms, and the steps that can be taken to prevent their introduction. It is like a lot of things in this world. Public education is probably the common element in the resolution of most problems, whether we are talking about child poverty, domestic violence or family breakdown. If we have a problem to deal with, public education is a very important aspect of it because we all have a role to play. There is the Kyoto commitment.

How do Canadians participate, for instance, in ensuring that we meet our targets in terms of greenhouse emission reductions? The House will know that business and industry had a tremendous amount to say about Kyoto and its impact on their businesses. This morning I had a visit from the cement industry who wanted to talk about how we could still pursue our Kyoto objectives but not in a way which would create substantial impacts on business and industry. The aspect of public education and awareness not only on the impacts but on what we can do to have an impact is extremely important.

The committee had a large number of recommendations and I do not intend to go through them. The committee concluded that, while very well intentioned, the federal initiative presented at the hearings came too late. That is unfortunate. It also felt that it was focused on processes and purposes rather than on immediate actions.

It is important to raise with the House the work that committees do along with the aspect that we have not brought forward an action plan. We may agree with principles and concepts. The fisheries committee has done a service to Parliament by raising the concern that we have not pushed forward with action plans on this urgent matter.

The committee favours an approach in which immediate actions will be taken in four specific areas. First, is the adoption of balanced water management regulation and development of treatment standards. Second, is the inclusion of species of Asian carp in schedule II of the regulations. This is another aspect, other than the zebra mussels, which they call an uninvited guest or invasive species. Third, is the prohibition of the sale and trade of Asian carp under section 43 of the Fisheries Act. Fourth, is the contribution to the full extent of our commitment to the budget of the sea lamprey control program.

I know that this is good news to the member for Huron—Bruce who has been a champion in this place for a number of years with regard to the sea lamprey problem. I recall when he actually brought to Parliament a large tank with sea lamprey so that members could see what they looked like. They are a very unusual species.

The fisheries committee has brought all of these issues to the attention of the House. With regard to the impact, the House will find that the issues that the committee has raised are the kinds of issues that we would fully expect from a committee. I am not sure whether it is just a matter of getting concurrence in a report, or whether we should also take note that committee reports should never just sit there without a prompt response from ministers and ministries, and other parties in the government.

This is an important process we have gone through. I thank the member for raising the concurrence motion for the House to consider. I move:

That the House proceed to orders of the day.

Public Service Modernization Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will just read the comments of the Public Service Alliance of Canada in its submission on this bill. It said:

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

That is what the alliance wished and said in its submission.

Here is what the alliance had to say:

Part 3 of Bill C-25, in its current form, represents a wholesale retreat from a public service defined by the appointment of the best-qualified individuals. Bill C-25 delivers on its promise of increased flexibility for management, but contains very little protection for employees or the principle of merit.

This was the Public Service Alliance of Canada condemning the fact that the principle of merit was a matter of choice for officials and protected the employees less and less.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon on Bill C-25. I will reread its title, if I may. It is 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, a very substantial bill of 282 pages, the short title of which is the Public Service Modernization Act.

I am all the more pleased to speak because, as the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, I am the Bloc Quebecois member whose riding is closest to the National Capital Region. The borders of my riding are contiguous to the edge of the NCR's territory,so a number of people from the riding work or have worked for the federal government or are still under contract to it. In fact, in recent years, the federal government has developed a new employment strategy that makes greater use of contract workers. These people also lived through the problems that occurred in the early 1990s.

You will understand that the public service was looking forward to this bill. In fact, in the early 1990s, there were some major cuts to the federal public service, to such an extent that a special committee had to be struck in the Outaouais region to look at how the economy of this region and a portion of Basses-Laurentides could cope with the major job losses of the time.

A committee was struck and a report—the Beaudry report—was produced. The chair of the committee that produced it, Marcel Beaudry, is now better known as the Chairperson of the NCC. It is obvious that not everyone was a loser as a result of the discussions and debates of the early 1990s. At least one person got a job out of it and is now the Chairperson of the National Capital Commission.

What did the Beaudry report ask for? Naturally, it recommended that the number of public servants in the Outaouais region be stabilized because the drain had to be stopped, but it also said that a way be found to facilitate economic diversification in the Outaouais and part of the Lower Laurentians. That is how the first economic diversification society was created, established and developed. The Society for the Economic Diversification of the Outaouais was the forerunner of all economic diversification societies created afterwards in Quebec, and adopted by the Quebec government.

That is the reality. At the beginning of the 1990s, the federal government caused a serious crisis with the drastic cut in the number of jobs. The federal government took part in the creation of the Beaudry committee. Then, naturally, there was the Beaudry report. Afterwards, Mr. Beaudry became the Chairperson of the National Capital Commission. Of course, the goal was to diversify the economy, but it was twofold; new niches were to be found in order to reduce dependency on the federal public service, and also to ensure the stability of the public service. One of the tasks was to review all the laws in order to guarantee job protection. That was the goal.

However, those drastic cuts occurred in the early 1990s. We are in 2003 and it is only now, 10 years later, that this massive 282-page bill, the Public Service Modernization Act, is being introduced to amend four important acts. I can understand the public servants. I had to work with them and the union stewards at the beginning of the 1990s, when we tried to prevent the drastic, massive and sometimes brutal cuts of the federal government.

I understand the unions who want to fight today so that, once the bill is passed, they never have relive past experiences. I have some reservations. However, I do want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Châteauguay, who worked hard and moved 120 amendments, in cooperation with the central labour bodies.

Basically, for everyone but the Liberals, the role of committee members is to strive for an agreement. In this case, we are talking about legislation to modernize the public service. We would have hoped for an agreement that is acceptable to and accepted by both the employer and the employees.

Today, we have a bizarre situation where there is a bill before the House which, with the exception of APEX, the association representing the managers to whom this bill is giving more powers, all the unions oppose.

Ten years ago, the Outaouais and certainly the Ottawa area, and eastern Ontario, experienced a major crisis because of drastic cuts. One of the recommendations at the time was to amend the legislation to protect employees. Parliament came up with Bill C-25, which has been denounced by every labour union except the one representing managers, the bosses, those who, with this bill, will be able to make personal choices and, of course, make their own policy, which is often the Liberal Party's policy.

I am saying this very candidly. I am not in the same league as my hon. colleague from Châteauguay who sits on the committee, where he reviewed each and every clause of the bill. He considered the bill clause by clause, naturally, and proposed amendments where amendments were considered necessary and desirable by the employees, the public servants, and their union representatives as well as the Bloc Quebecois.

I will not dissect this bill clause by clause, nor will I indicate which clause I am quoting. In response to the remarks made in this House by members of the ruling Liberal Party, however, I will simply read the bill's summary. In theory, it should contain the substance, the very essence of the bill. Let me read the summary found at the very beginning of the bill:

Part 1 enacts the Public Service Labour Relations Act to provide for a labour relations regime in the public service which is based on greater cooperation and consultation between the employer and bargaining agents, notably by requiring labour-management consultation committees—

When we read this bill, this summary, this description of part 1, we are entitled to think that all the employees should agree. That is what the purpose of the act should be. Yet, the labour unions have denounced part 1, among other things.

In the summary, we are told that we should establish, and I quote:

—a labour relations regime in the public service which is based on greater cooperation and consultation—

All the labour associations, except for APEX, are against this bill. What a good start that is. What a way to start a summary, to start a discussion on this bill in the House.

Right off the bat, in Part I, there is a big difference; employers and employees do not agree. However, Part I says that there should be a regime “based on greater cooperation and consultation”. Maybe we should continue this cooperation and consultation. Because, at this very moment, the employees and union representatives are not satisfied with the bill now before us.

The summary goes on to say:

Part 2 amends the Financial Administration Act to put direct responsibility for certain aspects of human resources management in the hands of deputy heads, subject to policies and directives of the Treasury Board.

Having read Part 2 of the summary, I can understand why senior managers and public servants are satisfied. They have just been told in no uncertain terms:

Part 2 amends the Financial Administration Act to put direct responsibility for certain aspects of human resources management in the hands of deputy heads.

Of course, they would have more power in terms of human resources, more latitude for political patronage. That is what my colleague from Châteauguay explained earlier. But the employees, and hopefully the employers as well, wanted something totally different. But no, we come up with legislation that gives more powers and responsibilities to deputy heads for human resources management.

Later, I will explain to you what those increased powers are, in terms of the merit principle and the use of the word “essential” to rig the criteria so that they get the person they want for the job.

So, they are being given more latitude. Obviously, some powers are being taken away from employees to appeal decisions made by administrators. That is the purpose.

That is what was described earlier. That is what was happening in the early 1990s when the public service was downsized. There were a lot of discussions because there was patronage. Ten years later, everyone is expecting a bill that will eliminate patronage. But no, quite the opposite, the summary of the bill, on page 1, describes it quite plainly:

Part 2 amends the Financial Administration Act to put direct responsibility for certain aspects of human resources management in the hands of deputy heads, subject to policies and directives—

It even specifies that:

New deputy head responsibilities include determining learning and developmental requirements, providing awards and setting standards of discipline.

Unbelievable. In the summary, it says that:

New deputy head responsibilities include determining learning and developmental requirements—

They will decide for themselves how staff will be trained.

—providing awards and setting standards of discipline

I can see why employees and union representatives are confronting APEX, the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada. They want to prevent everything they feared could happen, and which will happen if this bill goes through. The government is in the process of creating a network of public administrators who will have direct control over employees under their jurisdiction. That is the antithesis of what the public service and the employees wanted.

Obviously, there are very important reasons why the Bloc Quebecois is against this bill, and my colleague, the member for Châteauguay, explained them. I would like to read the position because it is clear, “The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill, since no amendments were put forward, especially with respect to protecting public servants who expose dubious, immoral or fraudulent practices or policies, but also with regard to the active promotion of linguistic duality. No significant amendments were made with regard to the contentious notion of merit”.

Let me explain. First, on the matter of dubious, immoral or fraudulent policies, we need to keep in mind that the sponsorships scandal, the inevitable result of Liberal party management, gave rise to some very important recommendations, one of which was to allow public employees to blow the whistle.

Of course the acts mentioned in Bill C-25 were not modernized, for instance, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Employment Act , the Financial Administration Act, and the Canadian Center for Management Development Act. We would have expected that under the bill those who lend a helping hand, namely those who are willing to report any unethical, questionable or fraudulent situation would have been afforded some protection with regard to the information given so that they would not suffer the consequences.

Believe it or not, in spite of the amendments moved by my colleague, Liberal members refused to include in the bill protection for those who might give information or report their colleagues' questionable, unethical and fraudulent practices. This of course is how the Liberals speak from both sides of their mouth. They are very proud of their whistle blower program. But when employees ask that whistle blowers be protected, the only bill introduced in the House in this respect does not do it.

We are talking about modernizing the public service. We have been waiting 10 years for this bill, since drastic cuts have affected the public service mainly in the Outaouais area and in eastern Ontario. Every current and future public servant had been waiting for this act to be significantly modernized.

We tried to clarify the bill so that employees would feel comfortable reporting questionable, fraudulent and unethical practices or policies on the part of the government—any government of course since the Liberals will not be in power for ever—but the government refused the amendments proposed by my colleague with the support of union representatives. This is one of the reasons why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill.

The second main reason concerns of course the active promotion of linguistic duality. In this respect, I must again remind the House that the Official Languages Commissioner, Dr. Dyane Adam, made very important recommendations asking that the bill make direct reference to the Official Languages Act with regard to anything that has to do with official languages. That was the objective.

All the more so since part 1 provides for ways, namely with reference to official languages, for staffing, qualifications, and so on. We can also read the following in the summary:

Part 4 amends the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act, which becomes the Canada School of Public Service Act. The School becomes responsible for learning and development activities for employees in the public service.

As you can see, a way to train staff is being devised. We want to ensure, with the official languages commissioner, Dr. Dyane Adam, among others, that the Official Languages Act is enforced.

Believe it or not, despite repeated calls and amendments moved by my colleague, Liberal members refused to approve what the Commissioner of Official Languages was asking for and what amendments were requested with regard to official languages. I think this is dreadful, because being the Bloc Quebecois member whose riding is closest to the National Capital Region, I have the good fortune to be told what is going on in the public service. A taxpayer told me that he had been invited to participate in a training session with everyone in his unit. It was very important training that was supposed to be given during the weekend. A place, which I will not name, had been booked. It was very important training, especially as it was supposed to be given in both official languages. Believe it or not, when the staff arrived, the training documents they received were in English only. Despite the concern expressed by the taxpayer, he was simply told that there had not been enough time to translate the documents and that explanations would be translated simultaneously. That is how things were done. This is what we have to deal with.

I am quite happy that this bill announces the Canada School of Public Service. However, I am less happy that this school will not have to fully comply with the Official Languages Act, as my colleague, the member for Châteauguay, wanted to ensure by making specific reference to the act. That is what we have to deal with.

The Liberals always manage to talk out of both sides of their mouth. They support linguistic duality and official languages, but when it comes time to put it in writing in a bill, and make reference to the Official Languages Act, to require that it be complied with, the Liberals vote against it. They vote against amendments and say, as they have in many other committees, that “the Official Languages Act is part of all legislation. It must be complied with”.

Why is the government not referring to this, particularly when it talks about the Canada School of Public Service, which should provide documentation in both languages to all public servants in bilingual positions? It must never be forgotten that, in Quebec, more than 50% of positions offered in the federal public service are bilingual. This is the reality while in British Columbia hardly 10% of positions offered must be bilingual. This is what the French minority in Quebec has to go through. When it wants to become part of the public service and have some opportunities, it must be bilingual, because more than 50% of positions offered in the federal public service in Quebec—I am not speaking about those offered elsewhere, but those offered in Quebec—must be bilingual. So, unilingual francophones are once again under attack by the federal government.

In the House, we tried to have the Official Languages Act applied in this bill, on the recommendation of the commissioner of official languages. My colleague from Châteauguay did not propose amendments just for the sake of it. He asked questions to the commissioner of official languages, Dr. Adam, as a witness, who proposed some changes, who proposed that amendments be added. All these amendments, all these changes, all these proposals were rejected by the Liberal members.

I will conclude by telling you about the last finding, the last major point to which the Bloc Quebecois is opposed, that is the contentious concept of merit. A whole part of this bill would allow senior officials to staff positions on the basis of merit. My colleague from Châteauguay had the chance to explain to you what the relevant clauses might mean. I will read the section of the Public Service Employment Act—

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-25.

A few days ago representatives of the Yukon Branch of the Public Service Alliance of Canada came to visit me. I would like to use my time today to put on the record some of the reservations brought forward by them.

Before I start though, I just want to emphasize a point I made earlier in this debate. I am very supportive of the President of the Treasury Board's effort to try to improve the representative now of the public service, especially employment in Ottawa, so that it is available to and filled by people from across this nation, therefore representative of the people from all distant sides of the nation. The public service will make decisions and implementations that would be sensitive to the various regions of the country.

I want to just go on the record with the eight concerns the local branch of PSAC.

The first item is removal the relative merit, replacing it with allowing the hiring of only people with essential qualifications. For a government that prides itself in bureaucracy based on merit, the union is concerned that this will reduce the ability to select the most meritorious person on a list. This could lead to more favouritism, although there could be abuse already in the present system that might exacerbate the situation, and could have the same effect on government downsizing as people leave the government.

The second point is a strike vote would be valid for only two months. I think this is a particular northern concern. First, two months may not allow time for the alternative dispute mechanisms to solve the problem. Of course I think we would all like it solved in a way other than a strike. However in the north, especially in the high Arctic and in Old Crow, it takes a longer time to get mail and communications through, and two months may not be enough time. A longer period would be more helpful.

The third point is the employer would have the exclusive right to determine the level and frequency of service during a strike.

The fourth concern is the union feels the proposed legislation would give the employer control over the designation process, making it more difficult for people on the picket line to be aware of who is designated. Now someone can be convicted of a summary offence by unknowingly preventing a designated worker from entering the premises. This could lead to an inadvertent conviction.

The fifth point relates to the fact that any employee can question a vote based on an irregularity. However an irregularity is not defined in the act. Therefore the union feels this could lead to abuse.

The sixth point is a new point and that is the fiscal position of the government needs to be taken into consideration during the negotiations. The union feels it is not obvious why this needs to be included in legislation.

The seventh point concerns a reintroduction of controls over the involvement of federal servants in elections. This would limit the involvement of federal civil servants in the political process. The union is worried that this clause, along with others, would have a spinoff effect on our local public service union in the Yukon government, which often mirrors federal legislation.

At one time there were extensive controls on involvement of federal public servants and this was struck down in the Supreme Court in the case of Barnhart et al, I believe, as unconstitutional. The union is concerned that by putting this back in, it could lead to another challenge, another loss and excessive taxpayer money spent on the case.

The union felt that some of these eight points and other points in its detailed submissions did not evolve from the Fryer and Quail studies on reforms.

I reviewed the legislation myself again and the detailed submission it made, sometime after midnight last night. There were two points it did not discuss with me which I would like to bring up at this time.

One is it said that it was in favour of legislation that was more mirrored on the Canada Labour Code specifically, and that this was quite different. The other point was related to the fact that essential workers could have to report to duty in off-hours or work overtime during a strike. What if a person is a single parent? What about people who might be caregivers and have other responsibilities?

I would like to thank the House for allowing me to put these concerns on the record.

I have subsequently had discussions with those involved in working intensively on this new act because I wanted to get replies to these concerns. I said that I really needed results on these concerns. I would like to provide feedback and more details on these 11 issues which I brought up.

First, the major one I think for a lot of people is the relative merit issue. I am told that merit was not defined in the old act so one of the new improvements in the proposed new act is it is now defined. I think everyone agrees, the unions and everyone else involved, that there have to be improvements to the act. What those are is what is under debate. In the old system there were a number of people stuck in appeals. As someone said a few minutes ago, there will be a large changeover in the public service soon and the act has to be efficient.

In some cases I have been told there is even more protection in the proposed new act for employees who think someone may not be the most meritorious, or should not get the job, or who has been abused. First, a new tribunal will deal with situations like that. This has never been in place before. Employees will have access to this. If they think they were not properly treated, they can appeal to the tribunal for abuse of authority, which includes two areas, bad faith or personal favouritism. This would help eliminate the concern of favouritism or nepotism, which I mentioned earlier. They also can appeal on skewing of qualifications or bureaucratic patronage. This would also apply to layoff discrimination. Therefore, in some ways, there are more protections against abuse of the system which were not there before. This new system will be there for some people who might be concerned about that abuse.

This is also new. The public service can audit the setting of qualifications. In either the old or the new system the setting of qualifications could be a back door to achieving abuse. Now the public service commission has the ability to audit those to remove that level of abuse. The public service commission also has broader authorities of inquiries.

There is a new informal mechanism to find out exactly why an employee may not have been hired before he or she would go into the formal steps, and the employer must provide that. This makes things faster and less bureaucratic.

The second item is the two month limit on the strike vote. I am not satisfied that this could not have been changed. I would have been happier to have had the time period extended. Once again, it is regionally sensitive in the north. We could use more time. I would have liked to have that changed. I understand that provision is in the Canada Labour Code. The union brief which I read mentioned that it was in favour of legislation more like the Canada Labour Code. I am assuming that if it is in the Canada Labour Code and it is working well, that is the argument why is not being extended. However personally I would like it extended if possible for the north.

The third item is the employer's exclusive right to determine the level and frequency of service. There are some new provisions in this part of the bill that are beneficial for unions. They can start conciliation while the labour board settles disputes about what essential services are. That could not happen before, and it will speed up the process.

There is also a potential advantage to unions in this clause with regard to the setting of levels of service. This also could not be done before. The employer could reduce the level of essential services and therefore allow more employees to partake in the strike. I have been told that under the present system even if 1% of individuals are considered essential, then those individuals would be excluded from striking. This new system might change that and once again free up more employees to take part in the strike.

The fourth item is related to employer control over the designation process which makes it more difficult for people on the picket line to be aware of who has been designated essential.

There are certain things both in the old act and the new act that are still negotiated such as what are essential services, how many and which positions. These still go through the same process as before. The fear was there would be challenges such as someone being stopped on the picket line who had been defined as an essential service employee.

I have been told by the people who worked on the bill that there are a lot of safeguards against that. It happens very seldom, if ever. Because of the safeguards, an individual would need leave from the labour relations board to lodge such a complaint. The complaint would obviously have to be reasonable or that neutral board would not allow the charge to proceed. The prosecutor would have to be convinced. One person I talked to said that this type of charge proceeded successfully once and it led to a $1 fine. It is virtually never used and certainly not abused because of the safeguards in place.

The fifth point is anyone can abuse the system by challenging a vote because of an irregularity and thus causing an investigation into a vote. Irregularity is not defined in the new act. This challenge could only be made within 10 days. It could be dismissed summarily by the labour relations board. If the charge is considered trivial or unwarranted and does not make any sense, it can be dismissed. Even if it is warranted, it could be dismissed if it did not make a difference. If the vote had gone ahead, the claim could be dismissed if the problem did not affect the vote.

The sixth point is a suggestion that the fiscal position of the government must be taken into consideration. Is that not obvious? Would that not obviously be included in negotiations? The point made to me was that it obviously had not been taken into consideration all the time in the past. In the 1990s an 18% increase was given. This works both ways however. It could be a definite advantage to employees and unions in that if the government is in a good fiscal position, it would be hard to argue against increases in wages and benefits that are due. This apparently was one of the suggestions that came from the Fryer report.

The seventh point has to do with controls on federal public servants being involved in the electoral process and the fact that they were limited before they were challenged. By putting that back in, it will lead to a challenge. However it is not the identical situation. What has been put in is actually related to the outcome and recommendations from a 1991 court case by Osborne, I believe, which, although it did not allow the blanket elimination of federal civil servants, it had control over it. However, because the system at the time had blanket provisions, that was not allowed. They think that under certain circumstances federal civil servants should be limited. Their point was that people with different jobs and different responsibilities could not be treated all the same in this situation.

Some people have different responsibilities, different profiles and there is a different public perception of the work they do. Of course no one wants partisan influence in the public service, so different situations have different ramifications.

The new proposals would allow people to be involved in the federal election process, unless it impairs or it is perceived to impair one's ability to fulfil one's duties impartially. That requires a review of the nature of the activity one wishes to participate in, the nature of the duties people have and the level and visibility of the position. As everyone is aware, conflict of interest is both a real and a perceived conflict of interest.

The last point I discussed with the union had to do with the fact that management would now automatically be excluded in this proposal. Previously they were automatically in the union unless the labour board exempted them. In the new and old act, executives were always excluded. In the new act the employer still has the burden to approve that non-obvious managers should be excluded. The employees only have to have the burden for the obvious ones, such as EXs, personnel staff and collective bargaining staff who are normally excluded. If employees want one of those not to be excluded, they would have to make that case.

In extension to the points that related to where all these changes came from and were discussed, although they were not all from the Fryer and Quail reports, there were, as I think earlier speakers mentioned, extensive discussions and development of this with various public service unions and others. The differences in relation to the Canada Labour Code relate to essential services and public services as opposed to what would be expected in private business or commercial services by Canadians.

Finally, in relation to the point about forcing someone with other responsibilities, such as a single parent or a caregiver of an elderly or infirm person, to go to work in their off hours, this would only apply to people on call out or standby in their regular positions. It would not apply to people who had accepted jobs on the grounds that they would never be called out and now all of a sudden are being forced to. It would only apply to those people where this was part of the position that they were involved in.

I was happy to receive all those points. I will be bringing them forward to the union. I will be watching to make sure the negative outcomes that some people feel might evolve do not evolve from these mechanisms and that we take what action needs to occur if they do.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I did earlier, I would like to quote the union's vice-president in response to my colleague's question. She says:

It is leeway that would ultimately allow the employer to choose whomever he wants for position x. This would open the door to abuse and bureaucratic patronage.

The same note was sounded by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, whose President appeared before the committee to express his reservations and request amendments to the bill. According to Steve Hindle, Bill C-25 is not only a ominous threat to the merit principle as it affects hiring, but the changes proposed by the minister would have the effect of placing the employees on permanent probation.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-25, an act to modernize the federal public service.

This bill will revamp the 35-year-old legislation and its rather obsolete provisions. It is the result of over thirty reports and studies on the need to renew the management of recruiting and staffing procedures in the public service.

These reports and studies all came to the same conclusion, that a change in culture is needed in the public service. After examining the many reports recommending a change in culture in the federal public service, the Presidentof the Treasury Board took a stand and set the goals she wanted to reach, based on her own perception of the situation.

In order to deal with the persistent personnel reductions within the public service and the increasing competitiveness of the private labour market, the President of the Treasury Board has come up with the following objectives: the inclusion of the merit principle; the implementation of a more flexible staffing system; the enhancement of labour-management relations; and the integration of a development and learning framework for the public service.

The government also intends to address demographic problems within the public service. The government believes that, with this bill, it will be able to resolve the deficiencies relating to representativeness and the aging of the public service. We must add to this the shortage of those with the right job skills. The government has identified this as a critical issue.

Finally, the bill aims to improve the public's perception. Due to the bad reputation of the public service, it would seem that few people are interested in pursuing a career there, so recruitment has been difficult. This last point, in particular, must be addressed by a change in culture.

This is a lengthy, and particularly ambitious bill. It would amend technical aspects related to public service administration, as well as the entire approach to the public service's vision.

I would first like to say that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill, since no amendments were put forward, especially with respect to protecting public servants who expose dubious, immoral or fraudulent practices or policies, but also with regard to the active promotion of linguistic duality. No significant amendments were made with regard to the contentious notion of merit.

During our work in committee, we put forward no fewer than 120 amendments that were rejected by the government members. When this bill was announced, it raised many hopes. In its current form, the bill is unfortunately very disappointing, contrary to what the government member has just said; there is great disappointment.

I am thinking here about the public servants who blow the whistle on abuse. They deserve protection, and they had hoped that the proposed modernization would provide it, but the Public Service of Canada is hardly rushing to their aid.

The minister should have provided federal public servants with mechanisms so they could raise problematic issues, without fear of reprisals. This is the position expressed by the former Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels, before the parliamentary committee. He admitted that his former office could not protect the anonymity of individuals all the way through to the end of the investigation.

The government must stop procrastinating when it comes to implementing provisions to protect public servants who want to blow the whistle on scams, waste and misconduct.

To this end, in addition to the investigative power of the Office of the Auditor General, the minister must offer protection to the informer, who out of good faith and with evidence, is relieving his conscience and fulfilling his duty to serve the state, because he feels he cannot live in silence and go along with the lie that has become systemic.

The government can say it is walking on eggshells on this issue, but the prudence it claims to be using should not prevent it from taking action. Sooner or later, such rules will have to be adopted.

This government has often been mired in scandals that have called its management abilities into question. We are entitled to wonder about the fate of a public servant who decided to denounce the attitude of his bosses.

Take for example the sponsorship scandal that continues to embarrass the Liberal government. Would the informer have been believed? What lengths would they have gone to, to undermine his credibility? Would he have been transferred, demoted or fired?

This clearly illustrates why public servants who denounce abuse should be protected against harassment. Modernization, as proposed, does not provide for such protection.

Moreover, a survey commissioned by the government and conducted in December 2002 showed that 21% of public servants say they fear being victims of harassment and discrimination.

There is no improvement on the horizon, since this bill essentially grants more power to senior officials for managing their employees. They will have more latitude for firing public servants.

This was denounced by the vice-president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Michelle Demers, during a radio interview on Radio-Canada. The second largest union of public servants is worried about the increased powers given to departmental managers under the reform. Ms. Demers said:

It is as though the employer had all the latitude to fire employees it finds unsuitable and employees were on probation, because there is nothing to protect them from being fired.

In addition, the institute fears that the new rules will allow managers to set hiring criteria, which leaves room for abuse of power.

The vice-president of the union added:

It is leeway that would ultimately allow the employer to choose whomever he wants for position x. This would open the door to abuse and bureaucratic patronage.

The same note was sounded by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, whose President appeared before the committee to express his reservations and request amendments to the bill. According to Steve Hindle, Bill C-25 is not only a ominous threat to the merit principle as it affects hiring, but the changes proposed by the minister would have the effect of placing the employees on permanent probation. Mr. Hindle said that the flexibility provided to Deputy Ministers under the new provisions, could “increase the incidence of bureaucratic patronage”.

I shall quote his exact words:

Section 30 grants wide discretion to senior management to abuse the merit principle. Once the basic qualifications are set, the deputy head has the legislated authority under subsection (2)(b) to use his or her discretion to narrow down the choice of candidates to one individual. In short, if the deputy head were intent on hiring his brother-in-law and as long as his brother-in-law possessed the basic qualifications, there is ample opportunity to construct additional criteria specific to one candidate to conceal what otherwise would be a deviation from merit and an abuse of authority.

People watching this debate might be surprised to learn that at present, some 40% of all appointments are made without competition. I think it is completely justified to wonder how high that percentage might rise once this bill is passed.

What the representatives of public servants came to tell the minister—and she remained generally inflexible—was that they wanted the new regime proposed in the bill to create a structure that would make it possible for all parties to establish a positive working environment in which employees could have satisfying careers.

The largest federal government union, The Public Service Alliance of Canada, PSAC, believes Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act, is not likely to help the Government reach its goal of more constructive, cooperative labour-management relations in support of a healthy, productive workplace, and may well have the opposite effect.

The union expressed its views clearly in a press release on March 26, 2003. The President, Nycole Turmel, said:

The PSAC fears that the new PSEA has the potential to usher in a new era of patronage, favouritism and a lack of accountability that is inconsistent with the Government’s stated objectives.

Reservations expressed by the Alliance are similar to the ones of the Bloc Quebecois and, with the 120 amendments that we proposed in committee, we tried to convince the government, but we were unsuccessful. These reservations were related to the exclusion of staffing and classification from collective bargaining, the dilution of the merit principle, as well as the provisions on essential services and picket lines.

What workers are concerned about is that, with this new legislation, directors will now only have to examine the application of a single candidate meeting the minimum requirements of a position. Moreover, Bill C-25 limits appointment challenges to cases of abuse of power and cases relating to the language of choice of the applicant.

Another significant effect of the bill concerns the right to strike. The right to strike is threatened, because the definition of essential services is too broad. The bill gives the employer the exclusive power to determine the level of essential services required during a strike. Employees do not agree with this, as they said once again in response to the bill, and I quote:

If the government is serious about wanting to modernize the public service, the first changes must be made by the employer. It is counterproductive to present the union with a bill that is already in its final form. We would have appreciated a really consultative approach, where we could have talked about the problems and tried to find mutually agreeable solutions.

Once those directly concerned, that is the public servants, expressed their disappointment with this bill, we in the Bloc Quebecois learned to our chagrin that most of our recommendations were set aside when Bill C-25 was drafted, and all but one of our 120 amendments rejected.

I attended several of the committee meetings and discussions in order to present amendments for my colleague, the public service critic for our party.

The officials who turned down our amendments, which had been proposed by the Alliance and by public servants, never provided any clarification or justification for doing so.

It is regrettable to include public servants in an act that is close to being final, without having consulted them. They are the ones who will have to live with it, once again. There is no modernization, and the bill does not help employees to carry out their duties, nor does it provide a suitable framework. Instead, it is the administrators who are being protected. This is legislation that was designed for administrators, for public service managers.

Understandably, therefore, we are opposed to this bill, since no changes have been made to it, particularly in connection with the protection of public servants who report dubious, immoral or fraudulent practices, and also in connection with the active promotion of linguistic duality. In addition, there has been no significant change relating to the controversial merit principle.

Our concerns about merit stem from the fact that essential qualifications only are required, which creates some ambiguity as far as the level is concerned. The word essential might indicate minimal competency, not optimal, thus creating concern about possible favouritism.

Our concern about the current whistleblowing policy is that it does not have force of law and could be changed without anybody knowing about it. Its scope is too limited to meet in any real way the objective, which is to build trust in deputy heads, so that employees can disclose fraudulent actions they come across.

Under the bill, remedies are few in that only abuse of power and the denial of the right to be assessed in the official language of one’s choice are covered. Abuse of power is very difficult to prove. That is why we believe it is essential that the scope of the remedies available to employees be expanded, so that they can take any abuse or breach of law to an administrative tribunal or to the courts.

With respect to harassment, we asked that Bill C-25 be amended to reflect changes already made to the Act respecting Labour Standards in Quebec. We wanted to address psychological harassment in particular, which affects more than 20% of the Canadian public service.

The commissioner's recommendations focused mainly on incorporating the concept of linguistic duality to ensure representativeness and making enforcement mandatory when it comes to training and litigation.

We thought that codetermination would greatly help promote merit as a selection criterion and reduce the risk of cronyism in the selection process. Our amendments asking for a codetermination mechanism have all been rejected at committee.

I will remind hon. members once again that we are opposed to this bill. We put forward 120 amendments. I would say that the Bloc Quebecois did what it had to do to ensure that the officials went back to the drawing board and that the minister, who was totally inflexible, reconsidered this bill. We would like her to reject the bill, go back to the drawing board and start over. This is not legislation for those who work in the public service, but legislation for those who wield power.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak briefly to this important bill. This bill basically reflects the government's obvious commitment to modernizing the legislation governing its public service, how one becomes a public servant and how our managers can staff positions in the public service. The current staffing process is so complex and outdated that it was imperative that we modernize our way of doing things. That is what this bill all about.

It is the culmination of a very comprehensive consultation process, of many efforts and of the resolve of the Secretary to the Treasury Board in particular. I would be remiss not to take this opportunity to speak to the bill.

During the negotiations and discussions that led to this bill and to some 40 amendments being approved in committee, there were many opportunities for everyone to express their views. Union representatives appeared before the committee after participating in many consultations conducted by the Treasury Board before the bill was even drafted. There have also been several commission of inquiry.

All this to say that the bill before us at third reading is the result of a collective effort, a serious effort to modernize the machinery of government and the public service.

A number of things have been said, and I wanted to take this opportunity to read into the record a letter dated May 14, 2003, from the President of the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada. I wanted to read it because it sums up pretty well the association's position, and also in light of criticism voiced recently through the media by the Public Service Alliance.

I am going to read this letter, which is addressed to me:

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada (APEX), I am writing to follow up on our recent appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates with regard to Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act. APEX is the national association of federal government executives and is dedicated to advancing management excellence and professionalism within the public service.

APEX supports Bill C-25 and is concerned with recent public statements by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), in which the integrity and professionalism of public service managers and executives were impugned. I refer to media interviews following the Alliance's recent meetings in Montreal and to the front-page article “PSAC goes on attack against reform bill” in the May 4 edition of the Ottawa Citizen. The Alliance says it believes that Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act, will allow managers to “rig” competitions and to hire whom they want and whom they know.

APEX has advocated human resource management reform for several years, and we were pleased in mid-2001 to be asked by the Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management to conduct a series of consultations with public servants across the country. The Association met with close to 850 public servants—executives, managers and young public servants—from coast to coast to coast. Its observations from those sessions were submitted to the task force in early October 2001 and participants, unionized or not, expressed a strong desire to have access to a significantly simpler, faster and more responsive staffing system, one which is backed up by clear accountability measures. In the absence of a greatly reformed system, the public service will have difficulty replacing the significant numbers of retirement age public servants who will leave in the next few years, developing employees with a broad range of experience and competing with other organizations on the open market for bright people with the right mix of skills. APEX's own position paper, which is based on wide-ranging consultations with executives over several years, was published shortly thereafter. (This is available on the Association's Web site at www.apex.gc.ca.)

Executives' interest in the reform proposed by C-25 is not based on a desire to run roughshod over the public interest and the legitimate aspirations of public servants who want to work in interesting jobs, in healthy, productive work environments. The charge that managers are keen to subvert prescribed processes in order to indulge in a spot of patronage is insulting. What managers want is to be able to hire, with as little delay as possible, someone who is qualified to do the work. Given their extensive experience, it is natural that managers will sometimes hire people whose work they already know and value. Managers at all levels are assessed on how well they serve the public interest, including how they hire, so it makes sense for them to ensure the process they use is fair and transparent. But “fair and transparent” shouldn't mean “slow and cumbersome”.

It is useful to consider how well hiring managers are respecting the rules now. According to the Public Service Commission's annual report for fiscal year 2001-02, 102,557 hiring and staffing activities were carried out. Of those, roughly 70,000 were appealable. Just 1,432 of these cases were in fact appealed—and of those, only about 8% were allowed. We agree there are occasional problems, but the bottom line is that they are caught and corrected.

The strengthened oversight mechanisms proposed in Bill C-25, which includes a new, independent tribunal, will continue to catch mistakes, just more quickly. APEX believes the draft legislation provides for more than adequate recourse, including third party reviews and a number of other checks and balances to ensure fairness in the staffing process. In fact, we believe that employee rights under the new legislation will be protected and enhanced. We have endorsed the strengthening of the Public Service Commission's audit and oversight role.

The association also strongly supports changes to promote greater union-management collaboration, in line with the report of the Fryer committee. Executives and managers are keen to work with their union colleagues to build a more collegial environment. In that context, the association applauds the provisions in the legislation, which require each DM to create a labour-management committee within his or her agency. This will result in better communication among executives, managers and unions at all levels and ensure that our labour relations become more collaborative and less confrontational.

APEX believes that the time has come to modernize the public service's human resources management regime since a generation of public servants has come and gone under the present legislative framework. What we need are laws and regulations that reflect today's values, management style and employee expectations.

Our conversations with executives, managers and unionized employees across the country revealed their strong desire to improve the dialogue between management and unions—at the shop level, in the regions and in work units. Based on the mandate given by the hon. Lucienne Robillard to the task force, the new legislation takes an important step in that direction.

Yours truly,

Robert Edmond, President

As I was saying, this is from the president of APEX, the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada.

I thought that it was important to read this letter and that it be on the public record because it establishes certain facts that we need to take into account when examining this bill.

I myself have had the opportunity to speak with several members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and APEX and most support this bill. I cannot say that there is nothing they would like to change, some amendments they would like to see, but by and large, in terms of the big picture, most people feel that this bill is an important step towards modernizing the legislation governing the public service.

Most of this legislation goes back 30, 35, or 40 years.

In closing, I move:

That the question be now put.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first, as to whether we need to have late night sittings, I suppose it depends on the co-operation on the part of the opposition, which is usually quite good, I must say.

Going to the substance for the next few days, we will continue this afternoon with the opposition day motion. The House does not sit tomorrow because of the Conservative leadership convention.

We are now entering June, the month when we try to wrap up the year's work and we will be consulting other House leaders on a daily, sometimes hourly basis, in order to determine the precise order of bills. However for the next few days we will be dealing mostly with report stages, third readings and consideration of Senate amendments to bills we have already passed.

The bills that will be considered next week will be, and I will start with the one on Monday, although we intend to have a minor conversation about another minor issue later, but generally speaking they will be as follows. We will start with Bill C-25, the public service bill. We will then move on to Bill C-31 respecting certain pensions for veterans and the RCMP. When that bill is completed I would hope to start Bill C-7 respecting first nations governance; and because they are all government days next week we are going to take them probably in roughly that sequence, Bill C-17 public safety; then Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill which is presently at third reading.

It would be my intention to then call Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments. When the bill is reported to the House, which hopefully will be one day next week, we could then commence Bill C-24, the political financing bill. We also have the amendments from the Senate which I understand might happen on Bill C-15, the lobbyist bill, and Bill C-10B, cruelty to animals.

At some point, we would also like to debate the second reading of Bill S-13, respecting the census, and Bill C-27, the airport bill.

As a matter of courtesy, I wish to indicate to colleagues that it is my intention to call the final supply day on or after June 12. This is not, of course, an official designation of that day at this point but that is why I say on or after, but at least to try and give an indication to colleagues in the event that they will not take other commitments at or about that particular time in order for them to be able to plan their agenda.

Public Service Modernization Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act.

Those who may have had the chance to flip through the bill have no doubt noticed how thick it is, with its 279 pages. This is an incredibly thick bill. The least we can say is that what the government is seeking to do constitutes an ambitious undertaking. Change may have been due for 35 years, as the minister said, but there are pros and cons in this bill, and we are going to discuss its various aspects.

It is important to mention that the federal government has been taking steps to reform the public service for quite a long time. In the 2001 Speech from the Throne, the government stated, and I quote:

The Government is committed to the reforms needed for the Public Service of Canada to continue evolving and adapting. These reforms will ensure that the Public Service is innovative, dynamic and reflective of the diversity of the country—able to attract and develop the talent needed to serve Canadians in the 21st century.

Here we are, as parliamentarians, discussing a bill with which the federal government is seeking to achieve the objectives stated in that throne speech.

Bill C-25 was referred to the Standing Committee on Governmental Operations and Estimates for consideration and to hear witnesses on the subject. The NDP had an opportunity to attend. The NDP heard various witnesses state their positions on this bill.

Since February 27, the committee has been meeting regularly to further consider this bill, and mainly to assess its scope. The great number of witnesses who appeared before the committee is a clear indication of the importance of the bill. And the committee submitted to the government the amendments it felt were necessary. I must say that while valid, these amendments do not reflect all the concerns of public service employees.

When we read the bill, we note that the employer did not put any constraint upon itself, especially since it was the main drafter of the bill. It has set its own rules regarding labour relations without consulting its employees much at all.

The NDP raised several important points that can be found in the bill but remain vague or hard to justify.

Where are public service employees' interests at this stage? We understood, as did the federal government, that providing the best service to Canadians is important to public service employees. However, we do not feel this should be done on the backs of workers.

It is important to remember that since the early 1990s, public service employees have been under a lot of pressure at work. Salaries were frozen for seven years. Program review resulted in the laying off of civil servants, which increased the workload for others.

I would like to make a point. Last week in my riding, the government announced it would lay off public service employees, who had almost reached three years of employment and therefore entitlement to government benefits. It did this to get around the system and to save money. Again, this was done on the backs of the workers.

Seventeen people were laid off without justification, in my view, since we need services. When people call offices, they cannot get service and are connected to answering machines. No service is provided, and the government is still laying people off.

It is odd that the people who are close to three years of service, on the verge of becoming unionized and being entitled to benefits, finally being able to live a normal life—like all workers in Canada—are the ones the government lays off. The same thing happened in Chatham, New Brunswick. Just before people reached three years of service, the government let them go.

I am certain—and time will tell—that, within six months, we will be hearing, “Oh, we are short of services. We are going to do more hiring”. That is the way this government operates.

About the pension fund surplus, that $30 billion that has been removed—I would like to say stolen but I know you would catch me on it—this is money that has been taken from the workers. The $30 billion comes from the pension fund. It represents pressure and stress the workers have to cope with. Yet this bill is touted as intended to help public servants.

It seems to me that employees in the public service have plenty of worry and stress, yet here comes a bill that will only add to their headaches. For whose benefit? For the people of Canada?

It is true that the committee did propose some amendments, but their scope is restricted to certain terms or reworking of content.

I want to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois in this connection, because it proposed 120 amendments to the committee. The government, however, accepted only one. We said to ourselves, “Maybe the Bloc Quebecois was not reasonable to bring in 120 amendments, so we will propose 10”, but none was accepted. As a result, no opposition amendments were accepted.

Does this mean that, in reality, we cannot think for ourselves, we cannot represent the people in our ridings, cannot represent the workers? Is that what it means? Does it mean that we are not smart enough? Is that the message the Liberal government wants to send to Canadians? I find it shameful that the committee was working ever since February, and yet the government adopted only those amendments it wanted to see adopted, in its own interests, not the interests of the workers. There is absolutely nothing in it for them. I will address this further later on in my speech.

The committee made no major amendments. What happened to the existing bargaining table and right of recourse? The federal government had the opportunity extend the deadline for giving a notice to negotiate to four months when a collective agreement or arbitral award is in force. Yet, it did not take advantage of this opportunity.

As for two-tier bargaining, it is not very clear.

What happened to merit-based staffing and classification? The amendments contained in the bill would allow managers to consider only one candidate who has the skills essential for the position. It refers to essential skills. Why set up a satffing process when the employer plans to hire based on such a limited number of candidates?

I was surprised earlier to hear my colleague, the member for St. John's East—and I want to underscore this part—say, “We have some concerns about this bill, but there are some good points”.

There is a question I would have liked to ask him, but due to a lack of time I was not able to do so. My question is this: What is the position of the Progressive Conservative Party on this? With respect to the bill's good points, he said, “Now the government has more powers when it comes to hiring”. Does the Progressive Conservative Party accept hiring based on the merits of one single person?

In the past, in Canada, we have experienced the situation whereby if you do not vote Conservative, you will not get a government job, or if you do not vote Liberal, you will not get a government job. And the same holds true today. This provision in the bill puts senior officials in a position whereby a government member can phone them up and say to them, “Now I want you to hire my aunt's daughter, or my uncle's daughter. She is the one I want you to hire. She worked on my election campaign. I want you to hire her”. This sets up a process that will make this type of hiring easier.

This bill eliminates the democratic process that would give every Canadian a chance for a job. This is shameful. I thought that in 2003 we had finally gotten beyond this. I thought that at the federal level, we were above this. I apologize for what I am about to say, but at the provincial level, people come and see me and they say, “Yvon, the only way for me to get a job is to work on the Conservative or Liberal campaign, in case they win the election”. I thought that we were through with this type of situation in Canada, in this so-called best country in the world.

The provisions on essential services in this bill are very punitive and retrograde.

How can it be justified on the basis of improved labour relations when, instead, it is going to widen the chasm between the employer and the unions?

And what about the basic right to strike all unionized employees have? Imposing limits and barriers on the union is an attempt to wipe out this right.

There have been a lot of discussions. Our hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois talked about them. It is in his speech. Once again, something is being taken away from workers' rights.

As a former union representative, I can assure you that taking away any part of this right from a union member is of no benefit to the employer. I have learned that through experience.

The bill on the modernization of the public service was a promise made by the Liberal government, and the New Democratic Party thinks that this promise has not been completely met. Simply bringing in a bill, declaring publicly that the government is proud of keeping its word, is worthless. It is a misrepresentation, as far as I know, because I can see no value at all in this commitment as it is expressed in Bill C-25.

The 297 pages of complicated legal terminology will not, in the end, improve labour relations between the two parties.

Should we be sorry for the thousands of Canadians employed in the public service who were hoping that this modernization would make a positive change in their workplace and would establish close cooperation between union and management?

Yes, I can do something other than being sorry for all those people, including some in my riding. The government talked about wonderful goodies, but in the end, they just got crumbs.

Now, it is up to the members of this House to represent the interests of these thousands of employees and to tell the government that Bill C-25 is nowhere near what public servants need. Why wait until everything is in place to realize that Bill C-25 is not adequate? We must act now if we want to make it adequate.

In the beginning, Bill C-25 was well received by my party. We believed that things had taken a turn for the better and that the public service would get what it deserved.

It is with heavy hearts that we are concluding consideration of this bill. It seems that the federal government does not want to modernize the public service. Instead, it wants to use it to its own advantage and for its own interests. I doubt that the federal government can build a modern-day public service with Bill C-25. Too many elements were amended in the interests of a single party. This will not allow Canada to boast about providing Canadians with the best services.

I would like to give other examples with regard to protecting whistleblowers, which was the subject of one of our amendments. How can a government refuse something so logical? It is as if I told my children, “If you notice one of your brothers or sisters stealing from one of your siblings, do not tell me”. It is like saying, “I do not want to hear about it if a senior official does something wrong”. There must be a reason for this.

The only reason has to do with what happened to Groupaction. Things unfolded, and public servants could have blown the whistle, but they did not because they were afraid of losing their jobs. That is the only reason this bill and these amendments were not adopted.

It is disgusting to see that the government is protecting the unacceptable. I said and I am going to say it again that it is like telling your child, “If you see your sister stealing in a store, I do not want to know about it, because I do not want to have to punish her”. That is the simplest and most logical way of putting it that I can find.

It is as though the government is telling its employees, “If you denounce someone in a senior position because he did something improper, you will be fired”.

That is why I take issue with this legislation, because we put forward amendments for the well-being of Canadians. I know the Liberals think that the government has belonged to them for 100 years, but the government does not belong to the Liberals. It belongs to Canadians. There should be provisions in the bill to protect our workers.

I worked for a company where I told the boss, “I am sure you hate the union”. He said he did not hate the union because if anyone in management did something wrong, the union would tell him about it and he would have to correct the situation.

At the time, I thought my employer had a good attitude. I did not always agree with my employer but on that occasion I said, “That makes sense”. I thought my boss was anti-union, but he was not. He said it was good to have a union because the union would report any shenanigans bosses got up to that the big boss did not know about.

The Liberal government does not want its employees to denounce senior officials. It does not want its employees to denounce the deputy minister if he does a favour for Groupaction, for instance, or for the owner of Auberge Grand-Mère. I am not saying he did that. No, it does not want public servants to inform it of this type of thing.

I think it is because it would have to punish people who have handed out goodies, those who have given out money during election campaigns. Is that the problem? What do the Liberals have to hide? I do not understand what the Liberals have to hide that they would say to employees, “Don't make these problems public”. I have a hard time understanding any of this.

Then there are the job openings for the National Capital Region. People from New Brunswick for example cannot get a job in Ottawa unless they have an apartment, an address in Ottawa. People from British Columbia cannot get a job in the capital of the country, in Ottawa, where almost all of the buildings house public servants. They cannot work for their government, for the taxpayers—since the public service belongs to the taxpayers, to all the people of Canada—unless they rent an apartment in Ottawa.

Now, renting an apartment takes money. The candidate is required to provide a home or business address in Ottawa. This means that a person who has a company address in Ottawa, but does not live there himself, can get a job.

But the poor unemployed young person who has been looking for a job within his or her province for six months and has all the qualifications for a job in Ottawa has to acquire an address in Ottawa or west Quebec—which certainly is just another way of saying the Gatineau region. To get that address, the young person must pay for an apartment. How can a young person be given a chance at a job?

It is so ridiculous that a person from Bathurst cannot get a job in Fredericton, but someone from Halifax or Newfoundland can, because of the kind of employment posters they have. I hope the commission is listening to what I have to say this evening, not just the government, and will find some solutions for this, because it is the commission that does the hiring.

I could give a lot more examples, because I have plenty. A francophone from Shippagan needs to speak English. He has to know both languages in order to get a job on a fishing boat. Well, I never knew fish spoke only English, so the workers on the boat needed to as well. His application is rejected because he does not speak English.

However, in Halifax, jobs are posted in English only. Anglophones can get a job in Halifax, but francophones in Shippagan have to have two languages. There are all sorts of injustices like this in the public service which will have to be resolved because it is completely unacceptable.

As Canadians and as taxpayers, they should have the opportunity for employment with Canada's public service, across the country.

I only have one minute left, so I would like to come back to the fisher I was talking about, a man who had a contract with the federal government for six months, aboard the Opilio at sea. There was a competition and he won it. After being given his assignment, he decided to try the bilingualism exam. He was told, “If you fail your bilingualism exam, you will lose your job as ship's captain”.

I spoke with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and they told me, “No, a francophone from Shippagan should be able to operate a boat; we will give him a job”. After I spoke to the minister, they said, “Now the second candidate had accepted a position in Saint John, but he decided to come back to Shippagan”.

This was unheard of in the public sector and in the public service. However, once again, given the power that the government has, with the power that senior officials have, they completely abused it. I find this unfortunate.

I hope that this bill is not passed. We will not be supporting it because it does not do enough for workers.

[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. I make these comments today on behalf of my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, who is unable to be here today because of his commitment to Her Majesty's business in another area.

We are all aware that in Bill C-25 we have an overhaul of the way the federal public sector functions. I wish it were a more complete overhaul, but we do have an overhaul. By the government's own admission, over the past few decades the federal 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 simply to hire a file clerk.

I wish the minister had been a little more thorough in addressing some of the issues that really affect people in this country when it comes to hiring. We are often told by government, the federal government especially, that when we are unemployed in a certain part of the country we should simply move to another part of the country. It seems like a very simple process if a person happens to be living in central Ontario, or in central Canada period.

My colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, has worked quite diligently in bringing some public attention to some of the problems people in this country have in being able to find work in other parts of the country. MPs realize, with people coming to them on a continuous basis looking for work, that people have a great deal of trouble accessing work in certain parts of the country. As I said a moment ago, the member for Cumberland—Colchester has worked quite hard in trying to bring public attention to some of the problems we have in that regard. For example, why is it that a person who lives in any part of this country cannot apply for a job that might be available in any other part of the country? This is why I am a little bit disappointed that the minister has not addressed this particular issue. It is a very important issue.

Today I was handed two or three different examples of what the member for Cumberland—Colchester has been talking about with respect to positions that become available in Ottawa.

For instance, I want to make members aware of a position for a paralegal in Ottawa. It is within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The salary is between $32,000 and $38,000 a year.

Who can apply for that position? The Public Service Commission says that people can apply who reside or work in eastern Ontario or western Quebec and who have a home or a business postal code beginning with K1 to K7, K8A to K8H, K0A to K0J and on and on it goes down through the postal codes. One would be tempted to say, and to say with some accuracy, that this is discrimination by postal code. Why is it that a person who lives in any part of the country, whether they happen to live on Vancouver Island or in Bonavista Bay, cannot apply for a position in the nation's capital? The way things stand now within the Public Service Commission one cannot apply.

That is not the only example I can give. It is a very serious issue. We feel and have always felt as part of our policy that all jobs in every part of Canada should be available to every single person in Canada.

Here I have one for an architect; it is not for a rocket scientist but an architect in Hull, Quebec. Who may apply for the job as an architect? Architects come from every part of the country. They are trained in every province in Canada, from Vancouver to Newfoundland, as I said, and who may apply for a job as an architect over in Hull, a job that pays between $44,000 and $54,000 a year? Again it is people who work in eastern Ontario or western Quebec. But if people happen to live in Saskatchewan, if they happen to live in British Columbia or if they happen to live in Newfoundland and are unemployed, they cannot apply for the job. That is not fair. That should not be happening in a democratic society like Canada. People should be able to apply for these jobs no matter what part of the country they happen to be living in. These are not jobs that the federal public service is finding difficult to fill.

For instance, I have one here for a secretary here in Ottawa. The salary is $32,000 to $35,000 a year. Again, who may apply? One can apply if one happens to be in eastern Ontario or western Quebec. Again, secretaries are available in every part of the country and come out of trade schools by the score in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, but they cannot apply for the job.

I have a funny one here for a real property officer trainee wanted in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to work within the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Who can apply for the job in Halifax, Nova Scotia? It is open to people in Kings--Hants, Colchester, Antigonish, Pictou and Lunenburg counties, one county in Prince Edward Island and all the island of Newfoundland. If one happens to live in western Ontario or Quebec, one cannot apply for that particular job in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Again it is not fair. It is not fair to the people of Ontario or the people of Quebec that they cannot apply for a job as a real property officer trainee in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

These are some of the real concerns. I have a whole stack of applications here for a project officer for Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and for a Halifax maritime search and rescue support officer. People who are on the doorstep of these jobs cannot apply. There is one for a dental assistant in Greenwood, Nova Scotia, but people have to be from Halifax, Lunenburg or Queens in order to apply to be a dental assistant. People from Ontario or Quebec cannot apply. And on and on it goes.

We had an overhaul of the public service, but we did not have a complete overhaul of the public service. People are very upset about this particular issue. The minister who is responsible for this act, the minister from the Treasury Board, has not done the kind of job she should have on this. I am sure she has had a number of complaints from people all across the country who have concerns about this particular bill. I really do wish that when the minister stands to sum up debate on this issue she will address some of the very real practical problems people have.

There are many good points contained in this bill, but the minister had been made aware of this problem by the member for Cumberland--Colchester and her department was made aware of this particular problem by my own office and by numerous MPs in the opposition. She failed to do anything about it and I do not know if she intends to do anything about it. She is shaking her head that she is going to do something about it, but we see no evidence of it, not in the act so far, so I can only assume that the minister for the sake of convenience is saying that they are going to do something about it. But as usual, they say it here in the House of Commons and it never seems to get on to the Public Service Commission. The real practical application of doing something about it never really gets done.

However, not to be totally negative about this bill, there are some good points contained in the bill. It provides for more flexibility in staffing and managing people. Managers within certain levels will have more power over hiring and whom 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, and I believe that to be very good. Nobody knows how to do a job like the people who do it every day, and if the intent of the bill holds true we should in the long run probably have a much happier federal workplace.

The bill provides for the overhaul and consolidation of staff training and development processes of the federal public service. Also, it more clearly delineates the roles of key players in the human resource area: Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission, and the various deputy ministers and their various equivalents.

However, I have to say that the public service has not kept pace with the absolutely frantic pace of the private sector in the modern world. Many public servants are baby boomers who are about to retire. I am told we need about 7,000 new people every year just to keep pace. If we need 7,000 people every year, why is the Public Service Commission being so restrictive in the way it posts jobs in this country?

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-25 to modernize the public service.

However, as for the work done in committee, I am not so pleased to note that out of more than 120 amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois, only one was adopted. Moreover, a dozen or so amendments moved by the NDP were all rejected. This gives a good indication of what is happening with the bill.

We are told that the committee has done its work and it is true; we spent several months on this legislation and we see the result. In terms of the amendments on anything that affects employees, officials, union organizations, or anything regarding bargaining agents, it is very clear what happened. All the amendments moved by the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois were rejected.

Bill C-25 would replace the current legislation, which dates back 35 years. That legislation became obsolete a very long time ago. This bill is the result of numerous reports and studies—more than thirty in total—on 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 cultural shift in the public service.

The President of the Treasury Board introduced her bill in the House on February 6, 2003. The purposes 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. This is not the case, far from it.

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. Well, it will not be able to do so.

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. Then there is the matter of the skills shortage. The government identifies this as being critical. It certainly is critical, but what Bill C-25 provides for is not the answer.

Finally, the intent of the bill could have been to really improve the public's perception of the public service. Because of its disrepute, few people are interested in a career in the public service, and there are recruitment shortages as a result. The cultural change will have to focus particularly on this last aspect. This is a pretty thick bill, one that is imposing and important, since it is designed to change not only technical aspects of the administration of the public service, but also the entire approach to it.

A structured and detailed approach should have been taken, if real changes were 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, in terms of its outcome.

As you might expect, Mr. Speaker, given my preamble, we are opposed to this bill because no significant changes were made, particularly with respect to the protection of public servants who report questionable, immoral or fraudulent practices or policies, but also with respect to actively promoting linguistic duality.

No changes were made regarding the contentious concept of merit. There are problems in the public service in Quebec as well; that is why, in January 2002, the Government of Quebec saw fit to create a position of secretary of state to public service renewal.

The Government of Quebec tackled the issue of managing the public service from various angles. In 1981, the Bisaillon commission completed its work and, in 1983, the government passed the Public Service Act (employee responsibility, services to the public and resource development). In 1993, the government passed an act respecting the accountability of deputy ministers and chief executive officers of public bodies.

In 1994, the Government of Quebec took steps to make managers more accountable, in order to emphasize the allocation of financial resources, ratify framework agreements with unions, and reduce central controls, in order to truly respond to the challenges being faced and to introduce a management model.

In 1997, working groups considered three themes. Their first task was to evaluate and design public policy. They were then to ensure that these policies were implemented and that the public service was recognized as an institution and resource necessary to the state.

In 1999, the minister of state for the administration of Quebec's public service and president of Quebec's treasury board tabled a statement of government management policies. Following this statement, there were internal and external consultations.

Finally, on May 25, 2000, the National Assembly of Quebec passed the Public Administration Act. The statement of government management policies focused on the reason the public service exists—to provide service to clients. The public has become the driving force behind Quebec's new legislation.

This is an example that could have and should have inspired the federal government as it prepared the bill before us.

This statement of principles has three main aspects. First, there is a reform of training. Secondly, there is evolution in performance contracts. Finally, there is the accountability of each work unit. The Quebec reform also emphasizes reporting.

The statement provides that results will be evaluated against strategic indicators related to the economic, social, cultural or environmental impact of programs.

The implementation of Quebec's policy is predicated on the involvement of many stakeholders. First , there are parliamentarians. They are responsible for democratic oversight, flexibility, the purpose and implementation of programs. The minister is also fully accountable for the department's orientation. It is the minister who signs the performance and accountability contracts.

This feature would have added a lot to Bill C-25. The concept of accountability is critical to the principle of transparency, which is what the federal government is most lacking.

The deputy head serves as an adviser to the minister and as director of the departmental administration. Heads of agencies retain responsibility for their agency. They also have the added role of participants in the portfolio. Finally public servants assume a program management role in order to provide services to the public in a non-partisan way.

Although the new concept of merit received a favourable reception from the deputy minister and the Public Service Commission, it met with marked rejection by employees' representatives, among them the Public Service Alliance and CSN.

The specific area of controversy is the essential qualification criterion in connection with the merit principle. Some have expressed doubts that the employer can find the best candidate for a position when the requirement is merely to possess the essential qualifications, not necessarily the best ones.

We therefore have concerns that the deputy head or any other public servant might make partisan appointments or appointments to suit his own purposes, either by imposing qualifications only one person possesses or by selecting from among the candidates someone with the essential qualifications who is not necessarily the best person for the job.

The fact that the requirement is limited to essential qualifications creates ambiguity as to the level required. In other words, the term essential might mean that a candidate is required to have minimal, not the best, qualifications.

Therefore, the word essential is causing some confusion, since it leads us to believe that these are basic conditions and not best qualifications.

Paragraph 30(2)( a ) of the Public Service Employment Act reads as follows:

(a) the Commission is satisfied that the person to be appointed meets the essential qualifications for the work to be performed, as established by the deputy head, including official language proficiency.

We had proposed amending paragraph 30(2)( a )by deleting the word essential. We believe that, as a result, the candidate will have to possess all the necessary qualifications. But, of course, our amendment was defeated in committee, as were all but one of our 120 amendments.

In this regard, the Public Service Alliance of Canada states in its brief, and I quote:

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

Further on, the brief reads:

Part 3 of Bill C-25, in its current form, represents a wholesale retreat from a public service defined by the appointment of the best qualified individuals. Bill C-25 delivers on its promise of increased flexibility for management, but contains very little protection for employees or the principle of merit. And, we would argue, very little accountability.

So, this bill merely increases the powers of the employer, of managers and of deputy heads, but has ignored everything to do with employee organizations, bargaining agents and, of course, if they represent them, public servants.

The PSAC also believes that the new notion of merit may put a chill on union activism, since the increased staffing power in the hands of front-line managers could enable them to slow the advancement of certain employees who are active in the union or even during the hiring process, which is even worse. We could even add political activism to this list.

Subsection 30(4) also diminishes the notion of the best candidate, since the Commission can limit the number. This section of the Public Service Employment Act reads as follows:

The Commission is not required to consider more than one person in order for an appointment to be made on the basis of merit

They are trying to say that when there is only one candidate, there will be no partisan appointment. When merit simply means a concept of merit with essential criteria and not having the best criteria, imagine how partisan the public service will become. At least, that is the big risk of this new legislation.

It is clear that this could lead to an abuse of power resulting in too broad a discretionary power. The problem with this provision stems from the fact that the aggrieved employee would not be able to appeal the decision because he will not have applied for a specific position. How could he go before a tribunal, when he did not have the opportunity to apply during the hiring period because only one candidate was chosen? Who will the candidate be? It will probably be someone in the good books of the boss, the employer, in other words, the deputy minister or the deputy head.

Moreover, with these provisions, challenging a decision becomes immaterial because a single appointment is possible. Those who oppose the concept of merit thought a compromise was possible whereby all parties would promise to release the job criteria before posting the job offer.

That way, professional requirements could not be made up on the spot for a specific candidate who happens to be in the boss's good books. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois put forward several amendments to clear up the ambiguous concept of merit, as it will probably be highly contestable and contested. However, all such amendments were rejected in committee.

It should be noted that the Auditor General is worried about the lack of rigour of the government and its departments, especially when it comes to job classifications in the public service.

The Auditor General confirmed our position in her report that was released this week, in May 2003, when she explained, in chapter 5, and I quote:

5.3 In our December 2000 Report, Chapter 21, we recommended that the government develop a results-oriented recruitment strategy that would identify post-secondary recruitment targets to address workforce renewal challenges for the years ahead. In our 2002 follow-up work discussed here, we found that some departments and the government as a whole have made limited progress in human resources planning and in establishing recruitment targets. We found that some departments and the government as a whole have not analyzed their recruitment and renewal needs. Nor does the government have a complete picture of the educated and skilled people who are entering the public service through its various recruitment routes.

The Auditor General therefore recommends reviewing how recruitment is viewed in order to strike a balance between immediate needs and the long-term strategy.

We were also happy to see in the May 2003 report of the Auditor General that our concerns regarding classification were retained as a source of problems for the government.

Since the Treasury Board Secretariat was unable to establish a classification standard that would have provided for a fair salary structure, it decided to not apply the universal classification standard that had been planned since 1991.

The Auditor General explained:

6.2 Thus, in April 2001 the Secretariat decided not to implement the Standard government-wide. This planned universal approach has now been abandoned, despite a large investment of time and effort by tens of thousands of employees and an estimated investment of about $200 million in incremental costs between 1998 and 2001.

We are also opposed to Bill C-25 because it does not provide protections for whistleblowers.

Since the sponsorships fiasco or the scandal at HRDC, it has become essential to put in place mechanisms to protect public employees who denounce practices that are questionable and possibly fraudulent.

The Public Service Integrity Office was opened on April 2, 2002. Its mission is to assist employees experiencing problems with internal disclosures of wrongdoing within their own department or when departmental mechanisms have not appropriately addressed their concerns.

According to the main guidelines of the policy governing the Public Service Integrity Officer, disclosure is defined as information raised within the organization in good faith, based on reasonable belief, by one or more employees concerning a wrongdoing that someone has committed or intends to commit. Wrongdoing is defined as an act concerning a violation of any law or regulation, amisuse of public funds or assets, gross mismanagement, ora substantial and specific danger to the life, health and safety of Canadians or the environment. It can also be an omission.

Therefore, the responsibilities of the Public Service Integrity Officer are: to provide advice to employees who are considering making a disclosure; to review disclosures and requests for review; to establish if there are sufficient grounds for review; to ensure that procedures are in place to manage instances of wrongdoing that require immediate or urgent action; to investigate or review the results of investigations; to prepare reports and make recommendations on how to address the disclosure; in cases when the departmental responses are not adequate or timely, to report to the Clerk of the Privy Council; to ensure that the protection of the information is in accordance with the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act; to protect from reprisal employees who disclose information concerning wrongdoing in good faith; to monitor the type and disposition of cases brought to his attention; and to prepare an annual report to the Privy Council.

As for reprisals, employees who claim they are victims of reprisals can make a complaint to the office of the integrity officer only if the original complaint was lodged with that office. Reprisals include administrative and disciplinary measures.

These disclosures should be made within the employee's own department or organization. On the other hand, there may be situations in which internal disclosure is difficult or impossible. In such cases, the employee may contact the officer directly.

There also may be situations in which the employee believes that his or her internal complaint has not been dealt with by the internal mechanisms available. In such a case, the employee may contact the Public Service Integrity Officer to establish appropriate disclosure mechanisms.

The disclosure policy provides that the entire procedure should be completed in less than six months. The procedure has six steps.

In the first step, the employee provides information relevant to the disclosure, including the name of the person or persons alleged to have committed or attempted to commit a wrongdoing. The employee should also specify the date and description of the wrongdoing and the nature of the wrongdoing. The employee providing information should identify himself or herself.

Step two is the screening and review of a disclosure. In order to determine the appropriateness of investigating the information received, the integrity officer will consult the employee making the disclosure. The officer may then determine whether the employee has tried to resolve the matter using the departmental mechanisms provided. He may also decide that the matter is trivial, frivolous or vexatious.

The officer may reject the disclosure if it is insufficient, imprecise or false. During this review, the officer may reject the disclosure if it was not made in good faith or on reasonable grounds. The officer may also decline to review a disclosure if it is determined that the matter could be dealt with more appropriately under another policy, such as harassment.

As for disclosure of criminal activity, this should be dealt with in accordance with the Policy on Losses of Money and Offences and Other Illegal Acts Against the Crown.

The integrity officer will inform the employee in writing, whether or not it will proceed, and also inform the deputy head of the department.

The third step is an attempt at resolution or identifying and taking appropriate action.

If the problem cannot be resolved, the officer may initiate an investigation, even after the preliminary review. This is the fourth step.

Then, The Public Service Integrity Officer will review the results of the investigation and prepare recommendations for the deputy head. The deputy head shall review the recommendations and make a decision.

The final stage consists of presenting a report to the Clerk of the Privy Council, when departmental responses are not adequate and timely.

Although the federal government has appointed an integrity officer to investigate irregular situations reported by public servants, the scope is not broad enough to adequately protect these employees against reprisals. That is why we proposed an amendment in this regard.

We had proposed amending the bill to require the implementation of a true statutory provision to protect whistleblowers in each government department and agency.

Our concern with regard to the current disclosure protection policy is that it has no force of law and can be amended without anyone being the wiser. The scope of this policy is too narrow to truly achieve the sought-after objectives of establishing an atmosphere of trust with regard to the deputy heads so that public servants would disclose fraud.

It is difficult to attain this objective since it is only a policy and not legislation. The Bloc Quebecois proposed a specific amendment that made protecting whistleblowers mandatory within the entire public service. Of course, our amendment was defeated in committee.

However, our amendment was based on the current policy, among other things, while using the Public Service Integrity Office to manage such reports. It also sought to make this office more independent and impartial, like that of the Auditor General.

Our amendment was as follows:

“Public service integrity officer” means someone appointed by the Governor in Council pursuant to section 242.2.

242.1(1) The employer sets out an internal disclosure policy for information on wrongful acts at the workplace stipulating that:

(a) employees may disclose, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, information on wrongful acts within their organization;

(b) disclosures must be handled appropriately and in a timely fashion;

(c) employees must be treated fairly and protected from any reprisals.

(2) Employees who have exhausted all forms of recourse provided for in the policy on disclosing information on wrongful acts committed by the employer mentioned in paragraph 242.1(1) may disclose information on wrongful acts to the public service integrity officer or, in exceptional circumstances where there is an immediate threat to life, health or public safety, to an outside source.

(3) The employer's policy mentioned in this section may be subject to co-development pursuant to section 11 of this legislation.

242.2(1) The public service integrity officer acts as an independent mediator for issues regarding the disclosure of wrongful acts and must report directly to Parliament. The Office of the Auditor General provides the facilities and administrative support to the public service integrity officer.

(2) The public service integrity officer sets out administrative procedures and policies to investigate allegations of wrongful acts and to protect from possible reprisal the employees who disclose in good faith information on wrongful acts in the workplace.

(3) The public service integrity officer chooses the corrective measures that he deems appropriate.

242.3 At all times, employees are protected from possible reprisal if they disclose or provide evidence in compliance with the employer's policy and the procedures applied by the public service integrity officer established pursuant to this section of the Act.

That was the amendment put forward for this legislation, not a policy.

Another aspect I strongly advocated in committee was limited recourse for public servants. Under the legislation, recourse is limited in that only abuse of power and language choice for interviews are covered.

Abuse of power is extremely difficult to prove and that is why we feel it is essential to broaden the scope of recourse that is available to public servants so that they may report any abuse or offence to administrative tribunals or the courts.

The Public Service Alliance voiced concerns about the limited number of grounds available to employees to bring their concerns to the expert tribunal. It wrote:

This not only unnecessarily limits review of the staffing process as a whole, but has the potential to severely limit the beneficial effects of the Tribunal’s authority over human rights issues. Given the total absence of detail as to how, and whether, classification standards and selection processes and tools will be consistent with human rights principles—the limited grounds of recourse are troubling indeed.

The Alliance went on to say:

Moreover, read together with the definition of merit in section 30, proving an abuse of authority will be virtually impossible. The right to complain rests on the ability of a complainant to show that he or she ought to have been appointed. Given that the Bill expressly provides that it is not inconsistent with merit to only consider one individual for appointment makes it difficult to conceive of how one might prove an abuse of authority such as personal favouritism.11 Moreover, the requirement that the individual prove that he or she ought to have been appointed, not that the process itself reflected an overall abuse of authority, is unnecessarily limiting and sets the standard of proof too high.

Continuing:

There is no right to file a complaint to the Tribunal in the case of external appointment processes. Given that the Government has removed the statutory preference for hiring from within the public service, the PSAC is concerned that a higher percentage of external appointment processes will be used and, accordingly, a higher number of staffing decisions will not be subject to recourse. The PSAC urges this Committee, therefore, to recommend that the Government return the statutory preference for hiring within the public service as set out in section 11 of the current Act.

We therefore moved an amendment that would increase the number of possibilities of recourse, but once again, of course, it was defeated in committee.

As with whistleblowers, the central government developed a policy to prevent harassment and, like the policy to protect whistleblowers, we moved amendments that would have required each department to apply the policy.

We asked that Bill C-25 be amended to reflect the changes already made to Quebec's legislation on labour standards. We wanted to deal specifically with the issue of psychological harassment, which affects more than 20% of Canada's public service.

We have to acknowledge that harassment has a significant impact on productivity. The results of the June 2001 policy clearly demonstrate that the policy needs to be applied more formally to be more effective.

In other words, this policy needed to be made more restrictive, it needed more teeth, because the federal policy has a number of shortcomings that needed to be fixed, and we had the opportunity to do so when we examined this bill.

We believe, for instance, that psychological harassment should have been included in these related provisions. This type of harassment must be understood and recognized by public service managers. Unfortunately, this type of harassment is not understood. Psychological harassment is insidious and devastating, because it is not done in an overt or obvious manner.

On May 21, 1999, the Government of Quebec's department of labour published a report on violence and psychological harassment in the workplace.

The definition in this document is drawn from a document written for client service officers in Quebec's department of employment and solidarity.

The definition is made up of four elements:

Any act of physical violence (assault or aggression) directed at an employee or an employee and his or her relatives resulting from his or her status as an employee of the department;

Any demonstration of verbal or written violence directed at an employee resulting from his or her status as an employee or directed at his or her relatives, whether threats, intimidation, defamatory libel, abusive or obscene comments, blackmail or any other form of harassment.

The third element is the following:

Any act of vandalism against the property of a member of the staff because of his or her status as an employee of the department or against departmental property, including the premises occupied by the department.

And the fourth element:

Any disruptive behaviour such as blocking the entrance or counter, shouting or swearing excessively, insulting or verbally abusing the staff or anyone present, and failing to heed a warning to stop.

This report contains a definition of psychological harassment, which says the following:

—through words, actions or behaviours that tend to devalue the workers, to reduce them to mere subordinates, and hinder their career advancement. Sometimes, this kind of violence takes the form of professional harassment, abuse of power and abuse of authority.

This must happen repeatedly and attack the employee's integrity or dignity.

In the same document, the CSN specifies that psychological harassment is insidious, subtle and invisible:

We talk about psychological violence when various means are used (words, actions, looks, posture, etc.) to hurt someone emotionally.

Certain American studies go even further, adding that harassment can take the form of deceptive actions or lies, control even outside the workplace, coercion, inequity, cruelty or indifference.

A 2002 poll by Statistics Canada showed that more than 20% of government employees experience harassment in their workplace. I should point out that, at Correctional Services Canada, 32% of employees report having been harassed. Imagine that. These are alarming statistics. We must act now, not wait for more studies that will show more of the same.

The poll also made reference to where this harassment was coming from. In the case of government employees, pressure came mainly from supervisors, 74% of the time, as compared to pressure from colleagues, 65 % of the time.

Some 78% of Correctional Services employees are harassed by their supervisors. It should be noted, too, that the percentage of these employees harassed by prisoners is high, 60% compared to 10% for public servants not employed by Correctional Services. Also, 13% of these workers are victims of physical violence, compared to 2% of public servants.

The Treasury Board's policy stipulates that it aims to prevent harassment by promoting increased awareness, early problem resolution and the use of mediation.

However, the next paragraph qualifies this objective by stating that dealing with harassment can be a complex matter, which is why it is important and essential to make related amendments to give it more force of law. Our amendments in this regard were defeated in committee.

Furthermore, the Official Languages Commissioner appeared before the committee to ask that specific reference to the Official Languages Act be added. The position of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is that this legislation automatically applies, by default, whether there is specific reference to it or not. The commissioner took the opposing position. She appeared before the committee to state this. That is why we presented amendments to the bill's preamble to this effect. Our amendments were defeated in committee.

As with the Physical Activity and Sport Act, we believe that explicit reference to the Official Languages Act must be made for it to have force of law. That is why we decided to present in committee the amendments proposed by the commissioner.

The purpose of commissioner's recommendations was essentially to incorporate the notion of linguistic duality for the purpose of public representativeness and making enforcement of the act mandatory, when it came to training or recourse before the courts.

The Chair is indicating that my time is up. I simply want to reiterate our main criticism. Obviously, there has been a total disregard, among other things, of our criticisms about the bill's lack of protection for whistleblowers, the notion of merit and the entire issue of protection from harassment and protection for official languages. Unfortunately, once again, all our 120 amendments, save one, were defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address third reading of 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. The act will be known as the public service modernization act, the PSMA. The bill is transitional in nature and will be phased in through levels of proclamation.

Part 1 enacts the public service labour relations act to provide for a labour relations regime in the public service which is based on greater cooperation and consultation between the employer and bargaining agents notably by requiring labour-management consultation committees enabling co-development, enhancing conciliation and providing for negotiated essential services agreements.

The new act eliminates certain managerial and confidential exclusions and brings unfair labour practices up to date. It provides for the establishment of conflict management capacity within the departments and more comprehensive grievance procedures. It also establishes the public service labour relations board whose mandate is to provide adjudication services, mediation services and compensation analysis and research services.

Part 2 amends the Financial Administration Act to put direct responsibility for certain aspects of human resources management into the hands of deputy heads, subject to policies and directives of the Treasury Board. New deputy head responsibilities include determining learning and development requirements, providing awards and setting standards of discipline.

Part 2 also amends the act to provide for annual reporting to Parliament by the President of the Treasury Board on the application of the human resources management provisions of the act.

Division 1 of part 3 enacts the new public service employment act to modernize staffing in the public service while retaining the core values of merit, excellence, non-partisanship and the ability to serve members of the public with integrity in the official language of need.

The act gives a new meaning to merit and creates new arrangements for staffing recourse, one of the features which is the public service staffing tribunal.

The Public Service Commission will continue to conduct investigations and audits on matters within its jurisdiction. The act establishes, in addition to the annual reporting by the Public Service Commission, a requirement for the President of the Treasury Board to report annually to Parliament on the Treasury Board's responsibilities under the act.

Division 2 of part 3 amends the existing Public Service Employment Act to permit certain elements of the new act to come into force sooner. The amendments establish new terms for the Public Service Commission to administer the existing act and to prepare the regulatory and policy framework for the new act. They also establish a new public service staffing tribunal to prepare for the coming into force of the new act and to establish a new regime governing the political activities of public servants in a manner that balances their right to engage in those activities while maintaining the principle of political impartiality in the public service.

Part 4 amends the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act which becomes the Canada school of public service act. The school becomes responsible for learning and development activities for employees in the public service.

When the bill was tabled in the House for second reading, the official opposition had concerns, especially in three areas. They were the new definition of merit, whistleblower protection for employees, and the constitutional rights of workers to be political partisans and remain public service employees.

The first concern that arose was around the new legal definition of merit. The regime seeks to remove the barnacles that have grown around the operational vehicle of staffing in the public service. The legislation attempts to wipe out the confusing court rulings of the merit principle which have built up over the years.

Time will only tell if the new definition will actually work as intended, but not every permutation can be anticipated. Therefore I am satisfied that the additional amendment that was agreed to from my initiative will protect the central idea from the worker's perspective.

Clause 14, line 42 at page 118 of the bill as originally printed was changed at the standing committee to read:

The Commission shall, on request or if it considers consultation necessary or desirable, consult with the employer or any employee organization certified as a bargaining agent under the Public Service Labour Relations Act with respect to policies respecting the manner of making and revoking appointments or with respect to the principles governing lay-offs or priorities for appointment.

This significant change puts the union smack in the middle of defending the merit principle as it may be applied in regulations and in the operational reality of staffing. The Public Service Commission will defend merit and will audit the bureaucracy for adherence. We now have two aspects, the legal definition and all the players who will make the abstract work in the real world.

The second concern of the Canadian Alliance was the growing controversy in Canada about protecting employees who should be reporting wrongdoing from inside the workplace. We have had a couple of private members' bills on that topic but they were deemed to be unworkable. The government had preferred an internal policy approach instead of a comprehensive system-wide bill.

However, the minister did respond to the growing community consensus that whistleblowing should be dealt with. Consequently, in November 2001 the internal disclosure policy was made operative. Now for the first time in law, the former internal policy memo on the topic has a basis in law.

The amendment which I brought forward, which was accepted by the government, commits the government to going down that ideological road of acknowledging the need for a policy and then protecting employees under the law with that policy. It is then evident from this change that the government accepts the legal principle that employees are to be encouraged to appropriately report wrongdoing in the workplace. This goes beyond reporting criminal wrongdoing, for all citizens no matter where they are, are duty bound to report to the authorities any criminal act that they observe.

However, there are many questionable things that may develop in the vast bureaucracy that need to be addressed and denounced. As managers and ministers cannot be all-knowing about every worker detail, there must be a culture of honesty and prudence that is backed up by law as a condition of employment that encourages employees to do the right thing when placed in ethical dilemmas.

There are amendments for legal recognition, but also in clause 2, line 23 on page 8, it should be noted that it is amended by adding:

--that affect those employees, which issues may include, among other things, (a) harassment in the workplace; and (b) the disclosure of information concerning wrongdoing in the public service and the protection from reprisal of employees who disclose such information.

This is in the functional area of the consultation committees of management and employees. This is followed by amendments to clause 8, on page 107, clause 8, which adds:

(h) establish policies or issue directives respecting the disclosure by persons employed in the public service of information concerning wrongdoing in the public service and the protection from reprisal of persons who disclose such information in accordance with those policies or directives;

(i) establish policies or issue directives respecting the prevention of harassment in the workplace and the resolution of disputes relating to such harassment.

The internal policy of the Treasury Board is now law. This takes the government down the road from which it cannot return and sends a clear message to future governments that loyal employees should always be protected and that the highest standards of conduct will be the norm throughout the public service.

These high standards will be a system-wide team effort and those who might be tempted to play offside will probably be reported on. Everyone has a stake in the issues of integrity and just doing the right thing.

The change allows for the operational flexibility and adjustment of the detailed regulations as new realities may occur, but the concept and culture now find their basis in legislation. My thanks to the progressive thinking of the minister for her effort to bring this subject into reality in the last year and her final step of agreeing to rooting it in the law. This is no small item for public workers in Canada.

The third area which came to prominence was the problem of the constitutional rights of workers to be political. Obvious conflicts of interest can arise when employees may wish to act in partisan ways while being employed in the public service which must remain non-partisan and be neutral to serve both the government of the day and the larger public interest. It must be remembered that public union employees do not work for their union or association but for the people of Canada and the national public interest.

The bill sought to respond to court rulings to describe the terms of how employees can become political, yet not violate conflicts with their own work. In the bill it is now clear that councillors on a municipal council can remain employed in the public service if all other issues of conflict are met. Employees may be a member of a political party, but they will of course keep their volunteer activities out of the workplace.

Employees may also seek to become candidates and will be able to take varied leaves without pay from their work in order to do partisan activities.

The sections as originally written in the bill were somewhat too restrained. Therefore, from my negotiations, there resulted in some agreement to loosen the regime under which a public employee could become a candidate. There are a variety of amendments in different parts of the bill but the effect is that the Public Service Commission has increased flexibility as the neutral arbiter of such matters to give varied short or long term leaves as needed so that an employee may seek a federal or provincial nomination for a riding and later take leave to actually fight the election.

I thank the minister for agreeing to these suggestions.

It remains that with reasonable limits for conflict, employees in the public service shall be able to be active members of political parties in their private lives and do that work in their communities. They may seek public office in accordance with a set of rules to not upset the overarching need to preserve the integrity and neutrality of the public service workplace. Time will tell if these new terms will work.

Like so much in the bill, the law cannot absolutely deal with every permutation that may arise. The commitment to formal and informal ongoing consultation that has been made by the government of the day will be the real maker of this legislation.

It has been widely observed that we need a culture change in the public service. The government is saying many good things based on the considerable advice and consultation that was made for the writing of this bill.

I accept the bill in principle as it seems to be the best we can get at this time. In view of the long consultation process and the need to have some legal concepts in operation soon, we need to move Bill C-25 forward.

I am pleased that the required statutory review of the bill will now be done in five years instead of seven, as originally planned. What may not work out operationally can be soon fixed by this guaranteed review.

The hope is that the bill will indeed modernize human resources management in the federal public service. It is the first wide-ranging legislative reform of human resources management in over 35 years. The time is now, as the public service needs 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.

I hope the PSMA will develop into a balanced legislative package that works positively, both for the national interest and for the working lives of the thousands who engage in public service. It is a significant revision of the rules of employment. It is the result of research and much Canada-wide consultation conducted by the task force on modernizing human resource management, and we thank them.

The individual members of the various bargaining units should carefully note where the Canadian Alliance is coming from concerning the public service.

The Canadian Alliance values a professional public service. We say that public employees have greatly contributed to the building of Canada and our nation will continue to benefit from public administration that is based on political non-partisanship and the merit principle where these values are respected and independently safeguarded.

We affirm the transparent accountability of service delivery and accountability to Parliament through ministerial responsibility.

We recognize the need for public administration that strives for excellence, that is reflective of Canada's diversity, which is able to serve with integrity and efficiency in the official language of need where numbers warrant.

We affirm the principle of an independent Public Service Commission with authority to make appointments to and within the public service, which in turn is accountable directly to Parliament.

We are committed to a public service that is characterized by fair employment practices, facilitative management-labour dialogue, personnel development and recourse systems structured to amicably resolve conflict.

Employee relations should operate under the principle that the protection of the public interest is paramount and that effective management labour relations is a cornerstone of sound human resource management.

We affirm that free collective bargaining is the preferred method to establish terms and conditions of employment.

Finally, the Canadian Alliance concern is that politicians should not play politics with the lives of public employees. On the other hand, employee groups should not play power politics with the national public interest. Therefore, no employee should have fear of a Canadian Alliance government, regardless of what our political opponents may try to claim.

What we are dealing with in this bill is more than just management and labour in the public sector. We are dealing with the viability of the nation state to serve its citizens with integrity, wise administration, and value for dollar. One quick look around the world and we can see the value of non-partisan public employees that can be trusted by the public in whose name they labour and who pay all the bills.

I close by saying that how Canadians care for and serve each other is a measure of who we are as a great nation.

[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 third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to move third reading of the Public Service Modernization Act.

As I have maintained many times in this House, I believe that an impartial, professional public service is one of this country's greatest assets. The Public Service of Canada is an honourable institution that contributes significantly to the high quality of life that we share as Canadians.

As parliamentarians, we owe the men and women of the public service who work diligently across the country and around the world, day in and day out, our thanks and respect.This government is committed to supporting public servants and to ensuring that the public service can continue to pursue excellence and provide high quality service in an increasingly complex and fact paced world.

Bill C-25 is a key component of our efforts. The bill is a comprehensive and carefully measured package of proposals. It represents a balanced approach to setting the foundation that will allow the public service to change the way it does business. It proposes to streamline our often cumbersome staffing system, thereby improving our ability to attract and hire the people we need, when and where we need them.

It aims to build more constructive labour-management relations and create a more productive and supportive working environment through such devices as mandatory departmental labour-management consultation committees. It proposes to change the way that the public service approaches corporate learning and development to make us more competitive and to ensure that we can retain and attract employees more effectively.

I do not intend to go over the salient features of the bill in any great detail. I did that when I rose in the House during second reading. Instead, I would like to look at some of the amendments that were proposed by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

The committee process provided an excellent opportunity to expand the debate and discussion on Bill C-25. I must applaud members of the committee from all parties for the comprehensive and thorough attention they gave the legislation.

I also would particularly like to thank my parliamentary secretary, the member for Niagara Centre, for his tireless enthusiasm and hard work throughout the legislative process. As we all know, committee work can often be long and tiring but it is an essential component of good law making. It is clear to me, having attended the committee as both a witness and a spectator, that its members approached the matter at hand with both vigour and a clear and unbiased desire to improve the bill for Canadians, and they succeeded.

Over the last three months the standing committee heard testimony from more than 20 organizations and individuals, including eminent academics, union representatives, the Clerk of the Privy Council and public servants. It systematically reviewed 175 proposed amendments, accepting 40. While the amendments do not change the key elements of the bill or what it intends to achieve, they nonetheless strengthened it in certain important areas. I welcome this chance to look at some of the revisions proposed.

The committee endorsed amendments to make more explicit the values upon which human resources management is based. The Public Service Employment Act section of Bill C-25 includes the preamble articulating the principles and values underlying staffing. It underscores the importance of a public service that strives for excellence, is representative of Canada's diversity and able to serve the public with integrity, and in their official language of choice.

The standing committee proposed that we expand the preamble to include an explicit commitment to transparency and a stronger reaffirmation of our commitment to the country's linguistic duality. This is far more than just rhetoric; it is a firm commitment to these guiding principles.

The members of the Standing Committee focussed much of their attention on creating a supportive working environment—notably one that is free from harassment and where public servants can feel safe to speak out against perceived wrongdoing.

Nobody disagrees that these are important issues. The only question is what approaches are the most effective to ensure that people truly are protected.

The government has favoured a policy approach instead of a legislative one. The former offers maximum flexibility and it can be implemented and amended more quickly than legislation.

That is why, in November 2001, the government instituted a policy on internal disclosure to support employees who raise issues of wrongdoing in the workplace and protect them from reprisal.

While we believe that having a policy is still the most appropriate approach, after hearing from witnesses, we accept the view that there should be some form of legislative basis to support our efforts to eliminate harassment and to protect employees who have disclosed wrongdoing.

Proposed amendments will help to achieve this by recognizing the importance of allowing the Treasury Board to have such policies in place. This sends a clear message to future governments that employees should always be protected.

Another amendment is designed to ensure that such issues will be discussed in the new consultation committees that deputy heads must establish to exchange information with bargaining agents and obtain views and advice on issues relating to the workplace.

A third area where amendments were proposed and endorsed by the committee relates to the political activities of public servants. The non-partisanship of the professional public service is one of its fundamental cornerstones. It is a critical component of good governance and it must be upheld. But in our efforts to do so, we cannot trample on an individual's right to freedom of expression. And we should not discourage people from seeking public office and serving their communities in an elected capacity.

The new act would establish a clear regime for political activities which balances the right of employees to engage in the political process with the principle of political impartiality in the public service. It would also update the current political activities regime to bring it in line with a previous Supreme Court ruling.

For example, Bill C-25 stipulates that the political activities of deputy heads will be limited to voting in elections and that they may not actively involve themselves with a candidate or a political party. Given their unique decision-making role and the importance of providing objective advice to minsters, I am sure the members of the House would agree that this is a prudent and appropriate measure.

A number of witnesses before the standing committee, including the Public Service Commission, thought that the bill as tabled merited adjustment to make the regime regarding employee political activities as flexible as possible.

As a result of a motion in committee by the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, there is a greater measure of flexibility with respect to whether an employee will be required to take leave when seeking to be a candidate or being a candidate in a federal, provincial or territorial election. There is new flexibility for the PSC to determine whether an employee would be granted permission to be, or seek to be, a candidate in an election.

I should also note that a separate amendment will strengthen the PSC's ability to investigate any allegation of wrongdoing in this area.

Those are just a few of the amendments that have emerged through the standing committee's thorough and thoughtful deliberations.

Before I close, I would like to mention one final aspect of the bill which has received considerable attention, the approach to merit.

Bill C-25 would strengthen the merit principle by requiring that all appointments to and within the public service be made on the basis of merit and by describing for the first time how merit is to be achieved. The new approach to merit will ensure that only competent individuals are staffed into jobs, while at the same time help to eliminate much of the unnecessary process which has made the system onerous and cumbersome.

After much consideration, we remain firm in our conviction that the changes proposed in the public service modernization act represent the most balanced and reasonable approach. Claims that we are watering down merit are clearly unfounded. While we are proposing greater flexibility in staffing, we are balancing them with strong safeguards to uphold the merit principle. We intend to focus the responsibilities of the Public Service Commission more squarely on safeguarding merit. At the same time, another proposed amendment will require that the commission consult, on request, with bargaining agents on policies regarding the manner of making and revoking appointments, as well as the principles regarding priorities for appointments and layoffs.

We also recognize that effective recourse is essential to maintaining the integrity of the staffing process. Bill C-25 would improve access to staffing recourse by creating a new independent public service staffing tribunal to hear complaints from employees who are dissatisfied with how they have been treated. One proposed amendment will clarify the grounds for complaints by stating that appointments made on the basis of personal favouritism constitute an abuse of authority.

Other proposed amendments have further strengthened the independence of the Public Service Commission and its audit's role. The member for Etobicoke North moved an amendment, for example, requiring that the appointment of the president of the Public Service Commission be approved by both Houses of Parliament. This will help sustain the independence of the office. Another amendment, proposed by the member for Châteauguay, would increase the scope of the Public Service Commission's audit function.

Together, these and other measures in the bill will ensure that merit remains the central principle guiding staffing.

I believe that these amendments will further strengthen this already solid piece of legislation. There was consensus among many of the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee that what is being proposed is long overdue.

We have a window of opportunity now—and we must take advantage of it. We are not just tinkering at the margins with this legislation. I believe that the Public Service Modernization Act will have a clear and enduring impact on one of Canada's most essential and respected organizations.

I would like to point out to members that this bill will be subject to automatic review in five years. This is a further reflection of the committee's view that five years was more appropriate than the seven years laid out in the original legislation.

The shorter time frame will give enough time for us to implement the legislation and take any appropriate measures. Throughout this period, we will report to Parliament on our progress.

The standing committee has deliberated long and hard and has offered wise counsel. Once again, I want to extend my thanks to them for their commitment to improving this important piece of legislation.

I firmly believe that with Bill C-25, we are clearly strengthening human resources management in the public service, which will lead to improved service to Canadians. I would like to invite all members of Parliament to support Bill C-25 at third reading.

[The Speaker]

It being 3:07 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the report stage of Bill C-25.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Business of the House

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to adopt the second motion the government House leader moved just a few moments ago, to defer the vote on report stage of Bill C-25 until 3 p.m. tomorrow?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, but we would indeed agree with the motion moved earlier by the government House leader. We had come to an agreement earlier, during the meeting of the House leaders.

Thus, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the motion to defer the vote on Bill C-25 until 3 p.m. tomorrow.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to this agreement, I believe you will find unanimous consent that the vote, that was requested by one party, to be taken at the conclusion of government orders tomorrow on report stage of Bill C-25 now be deferred instead to 3 p.m. tomorrow.

Committees of the House

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

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

I am the vice-chair of that committee from the opposition side. I am standing today to demonstrate that the official opposition is constructive and does not oppose for opposing's sake and that our party will never play politics with the lives of public employees.

Pursuant to its order of reference on Thursday, February 20, the committee has considered 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, and as agreed on Thursday, May 15, reports the bill with amendment.

Public Service

[Tony Tirabassi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and I thank him for his contribution at committee regarding Bill C-25.

There merit principle, which is the basis for all appointments in the public service, has never been defined in legislation. As a result, years of case law and precedent have resulted in a cumbersome process driven process that has provided an inability for the public service to recruit and to promote effectively.

Through Bill C-25 deputy head staffing authority will be delegated by the Public Service Commission in accordance with the PSC guidelines. This new approach--

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Treasury Board. Bill C-25 concerning public employees has now been completed at committee and will be tabled today. However the new definition of the merit principle has become a concern to the unions and many observers across the country.

What will the government do to ensure that Liberal supporters in the public service are no longer able to hire or promote just their Liberal friends and their favourites? How will the government truly defend the merit principle?

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 supply day motion that we commenced this morning.

Tomorrow we will resume the debate on Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill. This would be followed by Bill C-31, the pension bill of certain veterans and members of the RCMP. If and when this is completed, hopefully tomorrow, we would then resume consideration of Bill C-36, the archives bill, and possibly Bill C-17 on public safety.

Next week, as the hon. leader of the opposition in the House has stated, is a constituency week.

I have designated May 26 as an allotted day, although we are willing to have further conversations about that this afternoon.

On Tuesday, May 27, if Bill C-28 has not already been disposed of, we would at that point have to return to it. We would then turn to Bill C-25, the public service bill, followed by business not yet completed from this week.

This is the program at this juncture.

Question No. 171

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

With respect to 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, which received its first reading on February 6, 2003: ( a ) have steps been taken to anticipate the cost of implementing the transition of the title “Public Service of Canada” to “Federal Public Administration”; ( b ) if yes, what steps have been taken and what is the amount of the anticipated cost of changing this title; ( c ) how many legislative acts will this title transition affect; ( d ) is this change of title to be retroactive to all relevant legislation; and ( e ) if yes, what is the anticipated cost of making this change retroactive to all relevant legislation and departmental material?

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of the constituents in the riding of Winnipeg Centre to say a few words on this important bill at this stage.

Bill C-13 deals with reproductive technologies. The debate on the bill addresses an important area as Canadians approach the whole issue of reproductive technology. As we have heard throughout the debate, there are many compelling reasons to support the regulation of reproductive technology.

We are all familiar with recent sensational stories about human cloning, about eggs being sold over the Internet, about acrimonious lawsuits over surrogacy. Even last year we heard the Raelians claim that they had successfully cloned a human being. People in my riding want to know what the government plans to do to look after their interests in light of such interesting debate going on.

Even though it is the tip of the iceberg, we believe there is unregulated research and unregulated activity going on in this field. I am sure all members of the House agree that others around the globe are absolutely committed to this type of research. We want to make sure that Canadian interests are not only represented, but are protected.

We are living in a time when the term “designer babies” has become part of the North American lexicon. Parents are selecting the biological traits of their children. Internet sites compete in the trade of celebrity reproductive materials, while countless others profit from those Canadians who are more than willing to buy access to any healthy eggs or sperm that might assist them in their drive to have children. Even more worrisome perhaps is that gender selection has become topical, with all sorts of new rationales being put forward in its justification.

Many of us are now very familiar with some of the less sensational personal stories that have come to our attention as members of Parliament. We deal with families that are dealing with the issue of infertility. Stories of joy have come to my attention, as have stories of heartbreak, as well as sacrifice and pain during the whole infertility treatment and the process of parents trying to achieve reproductive success.

Reproductive technologies have become widespread in Canada, yet unfortunately they operate beyond the reach of government regulations. Therefore, we are pleased to be able to address this today and have this long overdue debate.

Unfortunately, the technology has leaped ahead by leaps and bounds without comment or without intervention by the federal government, in spite of the fact that it was over 10 years ago that the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies released its report. We have to ask why it has taken so long for us to have this very necessary debate.

I would like to list some of the concerns of the NDP regarding the bill. One issue is that during the committee stage the member for Winnipeg North Centre worked very closely with members from other parties on that committee to move amendments and to garner support for what they considered to be important amendments. They thought they had succeeded in a number of areas to break through or build some consensus on that committee regarding pretty fundamental issues in Bill C-13 that speaks to the creation of the assisted human reproduction agency.

A very fundamental principle arose. In seeing that human reproduction could be viewed disproportionately as a woman's issue or an issue that pertains to women's health, our representative on the committee, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, put forward a motion that there should be gender parity on the board of this newly established agency. She thought she had broad support for that until the vote came down.

When that particular amendment was voted on in the House of Commons, it did not succeed. We thought that the member for St. Paul's was on board with this issue and the issue of women's rights. We expected her support. We were very disappointed to find out that my colleague did not get the support for this important amendment. In fact, I have a list of how the vote went on Motion No. 71. As I say, we were very disappointed that was not recognized as a priority issue.

If, as the government claims, the bill is concerned with women's health, we argue what better way to give that claim leverage for enforcement purposes than to state outright that the precautionary principle should and must be the governing principle. Yet every time my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre raised this amendment to entrench the precautionary principle to ensure that the principle is imprinted in the legislation, our efforts were voted down by Liberal members of the committee.

The NDP wanted to require the federal government to ensure that reproductive technologies and drugs and procedures specifically are proven safe before they are introduced and that the risks and benefits of any treatment are fully made available and that the evaluation of reproductive health services include women's experiences. Yet it was frustrating, I am told, for the NDP to try to have these views succeed at the committee level.

I point out the contrast that even though the chair of that committee regarding Bill C-13 at the time, the member for St. Paul's could not see fit to support these reasonable amendments. She has recently, as reported in today's newspaper in fact, been the outspoken champion of the rights of standing committees to have some real genuine decision making authority in this place. Many of us have been frustrated by the work of committees. Many of us have felt that partisan politics and whipped votes have spoiled the opportunity for committees to do meaningful work.

As recently as yesterday in the government operations committee that same member for St. Paul's was the one saying that the members would not go any further in the clause by clause analysis of Bill C-25 until such time as the government released all the pertinent documents that they felt that they needed. In that case they were cabinet documents regarding the public service act that they were making reference too.

I see a contradiction in that on the committee dealing with the public service act the member is the champion of free speech and the champion of independent activity for members of the committee yet on the bill dealing with something as critical as reproductive health and reproductive technologies, the member was not willing to go that far.

A fundamental concern for New Democrats in this whole legislative process has to do with the commercialization and commodification of reproductive technologies. Many Canadians have expressed concern from the very beginning of the formal public dialogue about reproductive technologies. Back in the 1980s this very issue was raised. Concerns were expressed about the government agenda being driven by powerful biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries whose primary obligation is to their shareholders and not really to women's health.

There is really nothing in the bill particularly relating to the control of research results that distinguishes between the government's position and the position of these industries which stand to profit greatly from people's very real desires to have children. It is capitalizing on people's unfortunate situations that they are unable to have children naturally and are seeking reproductive technologies in the case of infertility at least and so on.

We raised the issue of patents for instance. We do not believe it is proper that human life should be a patentable commodity ever. We should never allow it to happen. There is a need to ensure that public access to the benefit of research should be available without a profit motive being built into it. For us, patenting still remains a critical issue.

Patenting remains for the government a separate issue, but for most Canadians and certainly to New Democrats, questions of research and the control and application of research results are inexorably linked.

Bill C-13, while necessary, has to be crafted in away such as to be vigorously enforced if it is to accurately reflect the wishes of most Canadians who do not want to see the commercialization of human life and human genes or human tissue ever turned into a profit making initiative.

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)