Government Operations Committee on May 10th, 2021

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

So neither the union nor the employer decided on the possibility of taxation. You have not taken a position on that.

[Marie-Chantal Girard]

No. In fact, the agreement mentions the issue of taxation, but it specifies that it will be up to the Canada Revenue Agency to make the decision.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

That is what it did, right?

[Marie-Chantal Girard]

As I understand it, yes.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

So, according to your position, the Treasury Board Secretariat would not be involved if there was a debate on the issue or if the decision was appealed. I don't know which court would hear that case, but the Canada Revenue Agency would be involved, and the Treasury Board Secretariat would have nothing to do with the decision.

[Marie-Chantal Girard]

Thank you for the request for clarification.

Yes, the Treasury Board Secretariat has established the agreements on payments and compensation, but taxation is the responsibility of the Canada Revenue Agency.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

On another matter, my colleagues on the committee occasionally get upset about the infamous 699 code and seem to think that those who use it don't want to be at work or don't care about their work. But in the vast majority of cases, it is a last resort for employees.

Could you go back to the issue and shed some light on it? Can you tell us, anecdotally, who the 699 code is for?

[Marie-Chantal Girard]

Thank you for the question.

Actually, the guidelines provided by the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer are aligned with the provisions in the collective agreements. The guidelines also comply with public health directives.

However, each leave request is assessed on a case-by-case basis. We have seen the situation fluctuate dramatically. At the beginning of the pandemic, of course, there was a period of adjustment, during which employees took leave using code 699. Thereafter, we saw that use drop steadily until the end of January. At that point, the high schools in Ontario closed and we saw a slight increase in the use of code 699.

Whatever the case may be, each employee has a discussion with his or her manager, who assesses all the adjustments that could be made to ensure productivity and that the employee is working to the extent possible. That is done by reorganizing tasks or hours of work.

Once that assessment has been done, the manager must make sure that leave taken under code 699 is not used for regular vacation days, such as those normally taken in the summer. Leave under code 699 is intended for employees who cannot get to work or complete their tasks, for reasons beyond their control.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

This is anecdotal, but I have received many more requests from public servants looking for ways to get to work or for tools so that they can work from home, than stories of public servants looking not to work during the pandemic.

I have one final question.

Anecdotally once more, are you seeing any impact among employees feeling isolated from their work?

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon. I'm trying to bear in mind that we need to be respectful of the time for the witnesses.

That said, Ms. Girard and Mr. Yalkin, thank you for being our witnesses today. You have indicated that you would provide us with some possible answers in writing. Please submit them to the clerk. The clerk can then distribute them to the committee.

We will now suspend the meeting briefly while we bring in our witnesses for the next hour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Let's resume our meeting.

We will start with some opening comments from our witnesses.

Ms. Daviau, you have five minutes, please.

[Debi Daviau, President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Debi Daviau, and I am president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, or PIPSC, the union that represents some 60,000 mainly federal public service professionals across Canada.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this exceptionally important issue. I would be happy to answer any and all questions you may have following my presentation.

I would first like to highlight how tens of thousands of dedicated public servants have continued to faithfully serve Canadians since the start of the pandemic. For example, PIPSC members built the systems to deliver the financial support programs desperately needed by their fellow Canadians. They helped thousands of stranded Canadians to return home. Our members worked miracles to get personal protective equipment to those who needed it. We built the technical infrastructure to allow other public servants to continue their work from the safety of their homes. Our health care professionals took to the front lines, and our scientists pivoted to focus on fighting COVID-19.

Right now a small percentage of our members still remain in their regular workplaces. They provide critical services, for example, health care in prisons and in remote communities, meteorological forecasting and IT support. Overall, though, approximately 90% of our members are currently working from their home offices.

In general terms, we are reasonably satisfied with how the government has handled the crisis's impact on its employees. Our representatives at all levels, from steward to me as president, have been in regular and frequent contact with their ministerial or departmental counterparts to identify specific concerns and fix specific problems.

There have been no layoffs of our members, and in some cases we've been able to come to an agreement with management to ensure the organization's continued operations and viability until the crisis is behind us for good.

I can't pretend there haven't been issues with individual departments or even local managers misinterpreting or simply ignoring Treasury Board directives. Yes, there have been a number of inconsistencies across Canada when it comes to implementing safety protocols and around our members working from home, but overall, I'll give the government a passing grade so far.

At this point, the main concern is one of adapting to the new work reality and to what the “new normal” will be like for the public service. It's about giving employees the choice to work at home or in an office, whether a satellite location or their regular workplace.

This means ensuring proper employer support for home offices and telework, making sure employees working from home have the equipment they need to do their job. For those who can't or don't want telework, it means ensuring that any future Government of Canada workplaces are designed with safety and health considerations at the forefront.

Just as important, it also means a big change in the public service work culture. It's no secret that many managers still don't trust their employees to work remotely, despite their demonstrated success in continuing to serve Canadians for the past year and a half. This will require a great deal of management training.

Also, because of the incredibly negative impact the pandemic has had on people's mental health and their work-life balance, the employer must develop new tools for ensuring the wellness of public service employees.

That's our overall reaction to the government's approach on COVID and its effects on employees to date. However, I also have some very specific points that I'd like to bring to the committee's attention today.

They are related to identifying which existing collective agreement provisions need to be modified or tweaked to ensure that public service managers have the ability to be flexible with employees while still respecting our contracts.

Our first concern on that front is about leave with pay, also known as code 699, which is getting lots of airtime today.

The vast majority of federal public servants have been able to work through this crisis without requiring extra leave. However, those who need more flexibility because of caregiving duties, to deal with health risks or who cannot perform their tasks at home, can use code 699 to apply for their leave.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there was more use of code 699 than now, because many federal public servants didn't have access to the tools to do their jobs from home at the time. I know that historically public servants are many commentators' preferred targets, but despite what you may have heard, to date the use of code 699 has in fact been minimal—a drop in the bucket, so to speak. When it's needed, it's needed. It's that simple.

It's also a fact that women, caregivers and those with health risks need access to code 699 leave to cope with the pandemic. It's broadly recognized that the burden of child care and financial repercussions in the COVID era has disproportionately fallen on women, but the Treasury Board proceeded, even after conducting a gender-based analysis and over the objections of bargaining agents, to make changes to code 699 that introduced a distinction between health issues and caregiving duties. The net result is that it's now more difficult for our members to access 699.

We find this so wrong that we have written to the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Women and Gender Equality, urging them to reverse this decision. We have also filed policy grievances on this issue, as have other bargaining agents.

Our second concern is about the duty to accommodate. At this point, it's very clear that the employer's duty to accommodate extends beyond the traditional workplace to include remote work and telework. We need to determine the most appropriate and reasonable accommodation in individual cases. This could include a combination of existing provisions augmented by temporary measures. Clear and concise guidelines on this are needed right away.

Our third concern revolves around hours of work provisions. They must be adapted in the future to reflect the high reliance on remote work, both during the pandemic and in the foreseeable future.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to emphasize how critical it is for the Treasury Board and individual departments and agencies to continue to consult and work closely with bargaining agents to ensure that all these points are being addressed. The government's response to the pandemic and its treatment of federal workers has been commendable so far. Let's not change that now.

I'd like to thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer your questions, as would my senior adviser, Emily Watkins.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Daviau. I appreciate that. We want to be respectful of your time and your commitment to being in this meeting, so we want to be as tight to the five minutes as possible.

We will go to Mr. Aylward for five minutes, please.

[Chris Aylward, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to participate today.

My name is Chris Aylward. I'm the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, representing over 140,000 federal public sector workers.

I would like to begin by commending the federal government for its continued financial support to Canadians and businesses impacted by COVID-19. Many of the 140,000 members of the federal public service are proud of their ongoing work to help deliver this support, and proud of their contributions during a time that remains difficult for many across the country.

Our members at the Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada have helped process tens of millions of applications for financial assistance for individuals and businesses, and are continuing to do so every day.

Border services officers deal with potentially infected travellers daily; food inspectors are in grave danger of outbreaks at meat-packing plants, and personnel in federal penitentiaries face similar threats.

With the restrictions brought on by each new wave of COVID-19, they have done this work around the clock when needed, with their children by their side, with family members to care for, and with the constant stress of changes that the virus has brought to the daily lives of each of us.

During my appearance before the committee last May, I noted that the government, as an employer, had been in unprecedented regular communication with our union as the pandemic unfolded. I am pleased to report that these open lines of communication have been maintained.

These open channels of co-operation have allowed us to facilitate greater support to our members, so that they might not only provide critical services to Canadians but also address the myriad of workplace problems generated by the pandemic.

A key and ongoing concern for PSAC members, and in fact for all public service employees, is the government's commitment to the health and safety of its employees. The pandemic is far from over and it must remain a top priority.

Despite some exceptions that we continue to work through, we acknowledge that the federal government has worked hard to keep the vast majority of our members safe during this pandemic. The measures put in place by Treasury Board have been in consultation with PSAC through respectful dialogue.

This largely effective collaboration has permitted the establishment of important new measures, including the vaccination framework and planning for the easing of restrictions.

The shortcomings in health and safety were largely apparent for our members working in specific sectors, notably border services officers and our food inspectors, fisheries inspectors and transportation inspectors. Safety measures were at times lacking or too slow in their implementation.

Moving forward, whether on the front lines or in offices, our members need to know that protective measures and training will be in place, and that personal protective equipment will be in stock and available. The availability of rapid testing should also remain an ongoing priority for those performing on-site work.

It must also be noted that many of our frontline workers were not given priority access to vaccines by provincial authorities. We hope the federal government can work with its provincial counterparts to avoid this in the future. The race between vaccines and variants will determine the outcome of this pandemic as it unfolds, and our workers need every protection available afforded them.

The PSAC is also continuing to work in full collaboration with Treasury Board as co-chair of the centre of expertise on mental health in the workplace.

One key lesson from the last year is that the flexible leave provisions negotiated between federal public sector unions and the government have been key to allowing workers to weather this crisis while continuing to deliver for Canadians.

Provisions such as the 699 leave have allowed thousands of workers to care for children when child care centres and schools shut down at various points in the pandemic. They allowed workers to keep their communities and family members safe, and to care for those who fell ill, including themselves. Rather than plunge these workers into personal and financial chaos, and rather than dragging the public service and our economy right along with them, they allowed these dedicated employees to work flexible hours and take the time they needed to address the hardships created by the pandemic.

That's why it has been disappointing, however, that the government has attempted to restrict the use of 699 leave across the public service, despite clear evidence that it is largely being used only when necessary.

Now, more broadly, PSAC is pleased the government has continued to respond to this crisis with progressive measures to support Canadians. Actions such as expanding access to employment insurance, the CERB, and supports for students, parents, seniors, women's shelters, food banks and emergency housing, have all been welcome and much needed.

The federal government's expenditures are an investment in Canadians and the future of this country. This pandemic has shown that public services are unique and indispensable. We cannot return to austerity measures, an austerity mentality and cutbacks to social services and programs. Instead, let's ensure the wealthiest pay their fair share while we work to rebuild and remake our country, and indeed the world, into something much better.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Aylward.

If the witnesses provide their speeches to us, we will have them translated and distributed to the committee so that members can have them in writing.

We'll now go to Ms. Stewart.

[Sharleen Stewart, President, Service Employees International Union Healthcare]

Thank you very much.

I want to start off by wishing every nurse in our country a happy National Nursing Week—registered practical nurses, RNs, all of them. They really carried us through a pretty traumatic year.

Members of the committee, my name is Sharleen Stewart. Thank you for hearing from me today.

SEIU represents over two million members across the United States, Puerto Rico and Canada. I proudly serve as international vice-president of our union and president of SEIU Healthcare, which represents 120,000 people nationally and 60,000 in Ontario. They are all frontline health care workers.

As I stated at this committee last summer, our elder care system has failed. It has failed working women, who make up the vast majority of frontline staff. It has failed seniors, who were robbed of dignity and life. It has failed their families, who just yesterday marked Mother's Day, mourning mothers and grandmothers who died in isolation. In short, it has failed everyday people.

On the other hand, the past year has rewarded others: shareholders who collect dividends from corporations purporting to deliver care and executives at real estate investment trusts—otherwise known as REITs—masquerading as care corporations, who earned big performance bonuses as death, suffering and economic depression descended over the women they employ.

SEIU Healthcare lost five workers in Ontario alone from COVID-19, because they went to work in service of their community. I'd like to read their names into the record: Christine Mandegarian, Arlene Reid, Sharon Roberts, Maureen Ambersley and Lorraine Gouveia. All of them were women, and all were women of colour. Meanwhile, three publicly traded nursing home chains—Chartwell, Sienna and Extendicare—have collectively paid out over $230 million in cash to shareholders in these past 12 months.

I provide this contrasting overview to demonstrate whom the system serves and whom the system fails. It serves nursing home chain owners and it fails families.

Members of this committee, I want to thank you and your respective parties for engaging with SEIU over the past year. I have had meaningful conversations with MPs from most parties, including Elizabeth May, Jagmeet Singh and Prime Minister Trudeau. You've been open and you've taken collective action.

We know that over eight cents out of every dollar spent to respond to COVID-19 is a result of decisions by MPs in Ottawa, and we thank you for that, but what is done with those federal dollars in emergency response when transferred to the provinces should concern us all.

Let's take our largest province as an example. Provincial regulations have been cut to eliminate minimum care standards for seniors. Provincial regulations have been cut to eliminate background checks for new staff.

This is skilled work. It is hard work, and it is work that must be protected and rewarded. When a province caves to the lobbying of the for-profit industry, we get more part-time work, lower pay and no accountability. We need new national standards that focus on people and care, not the real estate holdings of the nursing homes industry. We cannot allow more money for provinces to make a bad system bigger. We need standards to make a bad system better. As the recent report from the Ontario commission on long-term care indicated, we don't need to study the studies. We need to act.

Members of this committee, I ask that you champion national standards in your caucuses and in your provinces, and provide money, with strings attached, to do the following. First, increase staffing levels so that work is safe and the care is dignified. Second, put in standards that pay personal support workers and all health care workers a living wage. Third, put in standards that ensure full-time jobs where benefits are the norm and not the exception. Fourth, create financial penalties for nursing home chains that fail to meet care standards. Fifth, transform operations from a private system to a public system, like that of our trusted hospitals. These five items are not only popular among voters of all parties; they are also good public policy.

Thank you so much. I'd be happy to take any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll start questions, with six minutes from Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, witnesses.

Ms. Daviau and Mr. Aylward, how weird it is to have you back and not be talking directly about Phoenix. Someone else might bring it up, but I won't. Thanks for joining us today.

I have a couple of quick questions for you.

I'm wondering if both of you could update us on the policy grievances about the changes that TBS made in its directions to management near the end of 2020. I asked Treasury Board, but I was unable to get any answer. I'm just wondering if you're able to update us on how far along you are with that.

Are you getting any satisfaction? Could you give us an overview, please?

[Chris Aylward]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley. I'll start this off.

We have hearing dates. Our policy grievance was denied by Treasury Board. It has since been sent to the Federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. We asked for an expedited hearing. We have hearing dates now, starting in late August.

As a note, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has also asked to be heard during that policy grievance. It wants to be able to present the impact that this leave, and the lack of this leave, has shown.

That's where we are. We have hearing dates before the Federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board in late August.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Great.

Ms. Daviau.

[Debi Daviau]

It's not very different. We haven't yet had our hearing, but we're certainly on the same path as that identified by PSAC.

I just want to note that we surveyed our members about the use of code 699. We surveyed members specifically on the denial of 699, which you might find—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Yes. I was going to ask about that.

You could maybe both chime in on this. It seems to be at the manager's discretion, whether to have people take their vacation leave.

Can you give me an idea, in ballpark numbers, how many people are being told to burn off their vacation, how many are on sick pay and how many requests are being accepted? Is that possible—ballparkish?

[Debi Daviau]

I can't really give you ballpark numbers.

I can tell you, though, proportionally, women were two times more likely to be denied this kind of leave, on average. Women who had no other equity group, other than being female, were about 1.7 times more likely to be refused. Women from the LGBTQ2S community were 2.2 times more likely to be refused; racialized women, 2.8 times; indigenous women, 3.5 times more likely to be refused; women with disabilities—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay. I just—

[Debi Daviau]

That's just to highlight, because we don't have the overall numbers. It's impossible for us to ascertain it. That would be something the Treasury Board has to give you.