Finance Committee on Nov. 26th, 2013

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

The last time there were major changes undertaken within the public service and the labour laws around the public service was about 10 years ago. Compare that process, Mr. Yussuff, with what you're seeing now.

[Hassan Yussuff]

Well, that was a process. There is no process now. It's a unilateral decision made by the government through the insertion of these changes in the budget bill, and that's not a process. A process requires consultation and discussion with the parties to try to ensure that they appreciate that whatever change you may make to the current regime will improve the labour relations climate that both parties have to operate under.

In this particular case, there is no discussion or consultation.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cuzner.

We'll go to Mr. Keddy now, please.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our witnesses.

I want to preface my comments by saying that I think Canada is well served by a group of highly respected and highly qualified civil servants. That doesn't mean the system is perfect, and it doesn't mean there's not room to change.

Mr. Thomas, you brought up one especially egregious example of the system gone wrong. I'm going to assume that you're correct in what you've said. I'm sure you came to this committee with the evidence to support your claim. You stated that one civil servant was dismissed at one period of time and that it was proven they'd spent 75% of their time not doing their job. That worker then went to the labour relations board and was rehired.

Do you have evidence to back that claim up?

[Gregory Thomas]

Yes, he was reinstated by the public sector labour relations tribunal.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

The reason I brought that up is that it's important—and I think everyone and all of our panellists would agree—that we recognize that this means the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, and we're out of balance. Somehow or another, the government's job is to get back into that middle zone—not too far left and not too far right, but back into balance. You have to be able to get rid of incompetent employees somewhere along the line, and here, obviously, was an incompetent employee who could not be let go. That is a particularly egregious example.

Mr. Ian Lee, I love your quote on Runnymede. It was maybe a little bit out of touch, but that's also where we got the expression of grassroots, because the knights had to stand on the grass sod. So we all talk about grassroots, but it wasn't quite the legitimate example that we refer to today.

You say that for the first time, with these changes, we'll have a mandatory paper trail. Can you expand on that a little, and can you add to how important it is for everyone involved in any dispute that you have evidence presented, evidence that you can go back and look at to say, listen, this is exactly what happened here, this is not supposition, it's not something that someone made up, we actually have evidence that we can present?

[Dr. Ian Lee]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

The reference to Runnymede was really a reference to my op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen about a year ago on how English-speaking democracy has evolved over 800 years. It has evolved a whole series of checks and balances over a very long period of time. It wasn't a one-off on one magic day and then everything was fixed in stone.

To answer your question...and I really do believe this is an enhancement, not a derogation—not a diminution, an enhancement. Before, if a worker...and by the way, there's the provincial system. People may not realize that this is parallelled at the provincial level across Canada. There's a very similar system at the provincial level to what is being proposed at the federal level in this bill. I know, because I'm in university and I'm under the provincial system, with workforce committees and so forth.

The current system—and I've spoken to people privately about this—is very informal. A worker perceives danger and goes to the employer, and the employer doesn't agree. There's a lot of verbalizing going on, but there's no paper trail; there's no record. As an academic who studies public policy, I think having a paper trail, a record of decision, a record of conversations, a record of the evidence, is very important, as opposed to this verbal “I said this, you said that”. By the time Labour Canada gets involved, it's six or eight months later and people don't remember what they said in the meeting when they were yelling and shouting at each other.

So what this is going to do is impose what I would call due process—really good, empirical due process on this whole process of adjudicating it. I really am mystified as to why public sector unions or private sector unions are opposed. They're going to have more leverage under this system than under the current system.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you for that answer. I'm out of time, but I wanted to give you time to expound on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Monsieur Caron, s'il vous plaît.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for your presentations.

I'd like to pick up on the ability to pay.

Mr. Thomas, you mentioned the importance of that. I, too, think it's important to recognize the fiscal capacity. But isn't the capacity to pay somewhat of a subjective argument? The ability to pay threshold varies depending on who you're talking to. A number of economists consider Canada to be in good shape when it comes to its ratio of debt to GDP and deficit control, as compared with the rest of the industrialized world, especially Europe and the United States.

In some cases, the government is creating obstacles for itself. When it came to power in 2006, it adopted certain measures. It reduced the GST from 7% to 5% and steadily cut corporate taxes. The resulting loss of revenue was estimated at somewhere between $12 billion and $15 billion, before the recession had even hit. And, clearly, the recession exacerbated the impact of those measures.

Future measures by the government could again turn out to be self-imposed obstacles. It could then use the ability to pay argument to force the public sector to accept conditions because of things we are going through now.

Would you agree that the ability to pay is a subjective issue, one that really depends on the individual perception each and every one of us has?

[Gregory Thomas]

Mr. Caron, one of the easily foreseeable consequences of this is that at arbitration hearings bargaining agents, unions, will bring evidence that taxation levels have been artificially suppressed or are too low and that the government in fact has the ability to pay. Those arguments will be made before an arbitrator. An arbitrator will also have to consider evidence from the government, and what we're going to end up with will be longer, more expensive arbitration hearings.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has always simply urged government, the government of the day of whatever party it is, to spine up at the bargaining table, to bargain hard, bargain effectively, and to bargain the toughest deal they possibly can on behalf of taxpayers. Along with the evidence that's been presented by the C.D. Howe Institute, we believe it is clear that taxpayers win when you have freely bargained agreements and strikes.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to hear another perspective, so I'll ask Mr. Yussuff the same question.

Do you think the ability to pay argument is a subjective one? Do you agree that, if the government voluntarily reduces its fiscal capacity, that argument will be used by arbitrators during hearings?

[Hassan Yussuff]

Without hesitation, I think a freely bargained collective agreement has always been the right approach. The parties are consciously aware of what they're doing, and, more importantly, they make a decision regarding the final outcome of the collective bargaining process based on their ability to appreciate the different interests that need to be taken into consideration.

With regard to what the government has stated in the legislation, in my view, it will be a very biased process, because it's very subjective, with the government essentially determining.... The Minister of Finance would issue a statement to aid or abet the arbitrator in regard to the position the government is asking the arbitrator to conclude at the end of the day. So it could only be prejudicial to the neutral process that currently exists in the system.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Ms. Benson, in a case currently before the Supreme Court, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour is challenging the government on a very similar issue. We heard from witnesses who told us that the situation was the same and that, if the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federation, provisions like the one we're discussing could be overturned. Do you agree with that view?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just a brief response, please.

[Robyn Benson]

Certainly, if the Supreme Court finds in favour of labour.... I asked the question myself of Treasury Board when I said it was going to the Supreme Court. I asked them why they would put this in the omnibus bill. Treasury Board indicated that they were seeking intervenor status. I said I was sure labour was going to win and then it would be a moot point.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. Merci.

We'll go to Mr. Adler, please.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

Ms. Benson, the previous Liberal administration in 1993–94, when it attempted to balance the budget on the backs of our country's most vulnerable, took the decision to eliminate 55,000 public service jobs.

How devastating was that to the public service and to government operations at that time?

[Robyn Benson]

Actually, sir, it wasn't very devastating because at that time they had what was called a LAD, or least affected department, and a MAD, or most affected department. Where they downsized, we were able to do an alternation process, and that's how the workforce adjustment evolved. Those who wanted to retire could retire with an incentive, and those who wanted to stay were able to alternate with them.

In actual fact, the number of individuals laid off from the federal government was less in the 1990s than what it is today with the 20,000 cuts.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Interesting.

Could you please walk me through the process of dismissal?

Now, the public service is very professional in this country. On the whole, it does a pretty good job—an excellent job. However, not every public servant is excellent. When a public servant proves to be incompetent, or when they do something wrong or they're just not good, what is the process for dismissal for any kind of action taken against that employee?

What is the process for reprimanding or dismissing that employee, as the case may be?

[Robyn Benson]

Actually, it's an extensive process.

When individuals are hired into the federal government, that's an extensive process in and of itself. It's not simply an interview. Usually, there’s a written examination, then an interview, then reference checks. The individual comes in and, depending on the classification and where they're working, they're on probation. There is a probationary period. It may be six months, it may be a year. Throughout that process, the manager must provide written feedback to the individual—they have to provide training and written feedback. If you're on probation for a year, then it's at the first month, at six months, and at the final month, to say whether you're rejected on probation, which means you either leave the federal government or you stay.

If somebody, after many, many years, is perhaps not working to what their expected production is, for example, then you have to look at whether there is retraining, there is an accommodation issue, or that other things need to happen. Quite frankly, it's very difficult to get into the federal government, and many of my members are term employees for many years. Technically, if you're a term for three or four years, in order to stay on, or in order to be rehired, you're under performance evaluation all the time.

I find it really ironic that there are comments from the President of Treasury Board that not enough individuals are fired from the federal government. Quite frankly, in order to work for the federal government, it's quite a process to get in, and then there's a process of performance management, which has been around as long as I have been there, 33 years, where every year my manager tells me whether I'm doing a good job.

I question why we're so worried about what percentage has been released, when in fact it's very vigorous throughout the process.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

In Mr. Thomas's example of the employee who spent most of his time surfing the Internet and just not doing his job, what would have been your reaction to that employee? Would they have been dismissed under your watch or would something else have happened?

[Robyn Benson]

First of all, I find that very hard to believe. I would question what the manager is doing and why the manager is getting a performance bonus if in fact they have employees surfing the net all day. That would be my first question.

In the workplace where I come from, the Canada Revenue Agency, you don't have that luxury. You're processing individuals' tax returns. They want their refunds, quite frankly, as do the corporations want their refunds. In all of Treasury Board, the employees, I believe, are honest, hard-working individuals. I represent about 160,000 to 170,000 who work directly for Treasury Board, so if there is one person, then I have to shake my head.

The question begs to be asked, where was the manager?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

Is this a point of order, Mr. Cuzner?