First, let's analyze the discriminatory nature of the irregular implementation of the Student Employment Policy. That policy states in a number of places the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of student status. Furthermore, at paragraph 5.3(c), it states:
[...] managers wishing to assign students a full set of classified duties should instead appoint them to a classified position through the regular staff process, and pay them at the classified rate.
At the Chambly Canal, students hired as part of the FSWEP perform the duties of a classified position, but receive the rate of pay relating to the diploma required for the position, that is to say a high school diploma. This situation has the effect of causing serious discrimination toward the students, since they are paid $8.95 an hour, compared to a rate of $19.85 an hour for students occupying a classified position. This discrimination has a harmful effect on employability in the federal public service. The students who are the victims of this situation lose confidence in the machinery of government, which results in sharply diminished interest in having a career in the public service. The government thus finds itself deprived not only of a high-quality labour force, but also of the expertise acquired by the students as part of their employment. Consequently, the irregular implementation of the policy creates a discriminatory situation resulting in a diminished view of government as an employer.
Second, notwithstanding the foregoing analysis, let us look at the impact on employability of a lack of reasonable progression up the salary scale at the time of subsequent assignments. On this point, Schedule A of the students' employment contract at Parks Canada recognizes the principle of progression in compensation based on education through the development of guidelines for determining pay rates. Managers are thus recognized as having discretionary authority regarding pay rates to be applied to students.
At the Chambly Canal, all student employees receive the same rate of pay, despite their years of experience. For example, one student employee studying for a master's degree who has three years' experience is receiving the same rate of pay as a new student employee who has just earned a high school diploma. Consequently, it may be concluded that managers are not using their discretionary authority. The resulting effects on employability are not negligible. It must also be recognized that the more students specialize through postsecondary training, the more their education costs increase. This has serious consequences. Since students are unable to save enough money during the summer, they must work more during regular academic sessions. In some cases, this situation extends the time required to earn a diploma, which entails additional costs to society, since this specialized labour force is slow in entering the labour market. We must therefore consider student compensation as an investment. Consequently, the lack of a reasonable progression in student pay scales results in additional costs for both students and society.