Government Operations Committee on Feb. 25th, 2014

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You're one of the few left that has a union.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Mr. Martin. You time is up. I now yield the floor to Mr. Trottier.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the explanation about short-term disability. It's interesting to point out that major employers, unionized or not, all have short term disability programs in the country. The Government of Canada is an outlier currently not having that kind of regime in place. I think it's a question of going from an archaic system to a more modern system.

Just making the inference, if other employers do it there must be a reason. There must be some benefit to those employers, otherwise they wouldn't have it. Is that part of the thinking of the Government of Canada as to why we want to go to short-term disability?

Mr. Martin's point is that the insurance companies will make some money, but I think also the employer will realize some benefits. Could you explain how having a short term disability program in place would drive benefits for the Government of Canada?

[Bill Matthews]

Thank you.

There are two key pieces here. Number one is that 11% of our employees have no banked sick leave whatsoever, so if they're sick they're unpaid. If you're dealing with a short term disability regime of some sort they will get some percentage of pay, so there's a benefit there. As well, 60% of our employees don't have enough to get through to long-term disability, so again there's a benefit there.

The other piece in terms of modernizing our system is a more active case management system. If you speak to other employers and HR folks they'll tell you that being connected to your employees while they're off sick is important. When they're ready to come back to work we want them to come back to work and we need to do better on that front as well. It's a more active regime altogether.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

The major item in your request to Parliament to appropriate funds is the compensation adjustments, and reading the supplementary estimates (C), it says:

Subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, to supplement other appropriations that may need to be partially or fully funded as a result of adjustments made to terms and conditions of service or employment....

We talk about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Forces, GIC appointees, and crown corporations.

In plainer English could you explain what these compensation adjustments are and why there is a request to Parliament at this time in the supplementary estimates (C) for $73 million?

[Bill Matthews]

Sure. Thank you.

There are a couple of things here. These are agreements that were reached during the fiscal year. When a collective agreement is reached, either at the table or through arbitration, it doesn't matter how, there's a calculation done at the centre based on the group that has reached a deal and we figure out the resources that departments need to basically keep them whole.

In this case we had the bulk of this funding relate to the core public service: 22,000 employees and nine different agreements. To run through a few examples, aircraft operations received a 2% raise and there are about 460 employees there; Correctional Services folks received a 2% raise for roughly 7,200 employees, which was again reached over the summer, if I recall correctly. The executive cadre received a 1% raise and so that's factored in. The financial folks or the FIs or our accounting people had a 2% raise. Foreign services....

Those nine agreements, when we calculate it all up and figure out the impact on departmental budgets, that's where this money actually comes from.

In an operating budget freeze environment, which we will be starting next year, you will not see this. This is only in an environment where basically we're holding departmental funding whole, where these agreements got reached.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

When you say compensation adjustments, are any of those funds related to termination? I know there has been some downsizing in various areas of the public service. Most of that, to my understanding, was through attrition, through natural retirement and not replacing people. Are any of those compensation adjustments related to terminations?

[Bill Matthews]

No, these adjustments are all basically collective agreements, so changes to rates of pay, allowances, things like that. None of this money relates to that.

The costs that were absorbed by departments around terminations were all effectively absorbed out of the departments' existing budgets.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

In your presentation you talked about a number of horizontal items, spending that goes across different departments. How is it that those spending items show up in the supplementary estimates (C)? Would you explain the process of how this horizontal item—and to pick one example, the road map for Canada's official languages, which is something that goes across all departments across the Government of Canada—shows up now as a request for funds in supplementary estimates (C)?

[Bill Matthews]

This again relates to the role of Treasury Board and back to the link of budgets. When spending plans are at a detailed enough level that Treasury Board will then approve them, that's when you actually roll into the next available estimates document, whether it be main estimates or one of the three supplementary estimates.

For the road map for official languages, we have money for multiple departments, and Treasury Board did approve that since the last time. The commitment relates back to budget 2013, so it's not surprise funding or anything like that.

From a horizontal perspective we feel it's important that people understand that this money is going to multiple departments. If you were to look at the appropriation acts you would see money for ACOA, you would see money for Justice and Health, but you wouldn't see the link to the whole program. This is just a way of highlighting that multiple departments are getting money for this initiative.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Ms. Day, you have the floor.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Matthews, thank you for being here.

I would like to ask you some other questions on the insurance public service employees can obtain. You said that they could apply for employment insurance first of all. If I remember correctly, this involves short-term and long-term insurance. Normally, these programs are negotiated when people get insurance.

If I understood what you said properly, you would be negotiating long-term insurance. Consequently, the employees will have to turn the employment insurance for a certain number of weeks, and that corresponds to 55% of their salary. Then they will receive long-term benefits.

People are fully insured by the insurance company as soon as they are entitled to benefits. What is the amount of those benefits as compared to current employment insurance benefits?

[Bill Matthews]

Thank you for this question.

Currently, there is no plan to indemnify workers who are ill for a short period of time.

What budget 2014 has indicated is that the government is looking through the upcoming round of negotiations at a short-term disability regime. There is already a regime in place for long-term disability for employees. The way that regime works is that, if you've been absent for 13 weeks consecutively, you get 70% of your income. That's the long-term plan.

We don't have a short-term plan at the moment. Employees can accumulate 15 days of sick time per year, which accumulates. If they have sufficient sick time to get them through to long-term disability, that's the goal. What we realized when we looked at the statistics was that very many of our employees do not have enough sick leave to get them through to long-term disability. That's the reason we want to put a short-term disability regime on the table at the next round of negotiations. I can't give you any detail as to what the rates of reimbursement might look like because it does have to be negotiated. That is the upcoming round of negotiations with employees.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

If I understood correctly, this will be addressed in future budgets. Will this apply next year?

[Bill Matthews]

I can't put a timing on the actual negotiations. The negotiations are starting for the next round, which is during 2014-15. I would assume that as an agreement is reached it would be made public when it is ratified because it is at the bargaining table. I can't really speak to the timeframe over which it will be negotiated.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I would like to ask you a question about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Can you tell us what cuts will be made to that agency?

[Bill Matthews]

Just a moment, please. Can you tell me what page this is on?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

In the document you gave us, they mention page 6, but I did not find it, unfortunately. They refer to an amount of $2,477,594. The whole matter of food inspections is very current because it affects the food safety of citizens.

[Bill Matthews]

In supplementary estimates (C), there is nothing concerning that agency. So I cannot answer that question for the moment.

Maybe if you can give us some additional details we can take your question away and maybe get back to you.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

There is a decrease in the current supplementary estimates. Can you tell me what this consists of? We already have too few inspectors in this area.

[Bill Matthews]

I'm still looking for a reduction. I don't see....

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

This is on page 10. It is in the grey column. I think this is what Ms. Day was referring to. There is this amount of $2,477,594.

[Bill Matthews]

Ms. Santiago informs me that this a transfer to another organization, and not a cut. We will be able to give you an answer on this in a few minutes.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Fine.

Ms. Day, you have the floor.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I would like to go back to another topic, since on page 11 they talk about citizenship and immigration. It is in the grey column.

Previously, you said in your introduction that these were non- francophone immigrants for Quebec. Could you provide us with further details on that? Why are there cuts in this part?