Government Operations Committee on June 7th, 2007

[Susan Louis-Seize]

What we mean is our pay scale only has two increments. You start at one salary, and then you go up. You have two years. After two years I would be making as much as the person who has ten years' experience. The two cannot be compared.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

That seems pretty obvious to me.

We have a system that needs to be fixed.

[Susan Louis-Seize]

I would like to address one point that you made. That is, can the tasks be divided? The problem with dividing the tasks into pay or just pension or just insurance is that they are all interrelated, and it would create an area for error.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

That point was well made. I understand.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Does one of the Liberals want to say something?

Mr. Bonin?

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

May I speak later?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

It's your turn now. It's a Liberal's turn.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Let's go to the reality now.

The reason that we have this situation is because these positions are negotiated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Bonin, no—not the classification, I don't think. The classification is a different issue.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Are you telling me that they can change their classifications without signing an agreement with the union? They can?

[John Gordon]

They would apply on a competition. That would be a staffing matter to change from one classification to another. It's certainly not negotiable.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

That a classification would cause that some of the people are underpaid—that's not negotiated?

[Margaret Jaekl]

Classification is not negotiated. We would like it to be, but classification is not negotiated. It's management's right. Management determines the classification of the positions. We negotiate the rates of pay within those classifications, but it's management that decides what the classification of a position is.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

That's good. Thank you. I'm glad you cleared that up. It doesn't make sense to me, but—

That's the way we did things in 1965. I worked on a teletype in 1965. People don't know what a teletype is today. I won't draw it out any more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ms. Bourgeois.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to say that I have enormous respect for the work done by government employees. In my opinion, in this world where we try to rationalize to the extreme, employees are usually the ones who take it in the neck.

I'm shocked by the question of the vote, which was raised by Mr. Gordon. I think that's fair game. It may have been perceived as tactless, but I think it's a power struggle. To the extent that Quebec and other federal members are involved in this power struggle, I understand the situation. I don't bear you a grudge.

Madam Chair, we now know, since you yourself raised the question, that employees are afraid of their employer. I know the extent to which they are protected and that even the Whistle Blowers Protection Act doesn't protect them enough. I've made speeches in the House for the protection period to be extended. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act provides for 60 days, if I'm not mistaken, which is unacceptable.

In closing, I'm going to ask you a quite harmless question.

If your salary were raised, would all the problems be solved?

[John Gordon]

I would say that if you increased the salary they would like it, but it certainly wouldn't solve the problem. It's deeper than just that.

[A voice]

But people might stay.

[John Gordon]

It would be a step in the right direction, but it wouldn't solve the problem. It's a systemic problem and it has to be dealt with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ms. Melançon.

[Diane Melançon]

I don't entirely agree.

Of course, we might perhaps still have problems. There can always be problems, but our major problem is definitely classification. Until that's solved, we'll always have problems. People don't want to work in compensation, don't want to keep positions of that kind, where the work is complex and responsibilities numerous.

For example, people classified as AS-2s are administrative assistants. They work in administration. I'm not trying to demean them, but I must say that their work is not complex like ours. The responsibilities are not the same, but they receive the same salary. I've also seen secretaries reclassified as AS-2s. Their salaries are now the same as ours.

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

That's it. I needed additional information. Your duties are too great, and it's not a higher salary that will solve the problem. If I understood correctly, classification makes it possible to establish definitions of tasks.

[Diane Melançon]

Yes.

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

If a person is classified as an AS-2, his or her duties are no doubt different from those of a person classified AS-4. If there are a number of classifications and they are clearly determined, the duties of the incumbent are clearly specified; the incumbent therefore does not have to do someone else's job and is paid accordingly, of course. That's what I understood.

[Diane Melançon]

Yes, and, at the moment, our job description, which states what we do as classified AS-2 employees, is not—