Human Resources Committee on April 25th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Technically, they could but that will be on the record. I'm sure they wouldn't want to do that in this situation.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

That's exactly what they're going to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We'll see.

Mr. Blaney, you have four minutes.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much.

It was important to us to hear your testimony today, despite a rather fragmented schedule. We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for being here. I especially want to thank Mr. Mortimer, who has travelled from British Columbia.

We are hearing nothing but praise from the unions as regards the Liberals. It is interesting. That said, this bill, which is sponsored by Mr. Brison, the Treasury Board President, comes with a price tag of a billion dollars. I have to say that something is off. I really liked what Mr. Roberts said in this regard about public servants deserving respect. He is quite right. I was a public servant myself for four years.

The fact remains, however, that we also have to think of taxpayers.

In this regard, I have a question for you, Mr. Mortimer. You talked about absenteeism. Right now, people are taking a record number of sick days in the federal public service. There is a problem. Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill that addresses this problem in the federal public service. The number of sick days taken is higher than in the private sector. There was an article in Maclean's magazine about this problem, which could get worse. The numbers are essentially the same: there is a loss of 13.5 days per year. That is not comparable to what we see in the private sector.

We have before us a bill that I consider partisan. It removes rights from the employer, the government, particularly as regards essential services and the negotiation of collective agreements. I would like you to tell us about the impact this bill will have on taxpayers, and also on the private sector. A bill of this kind will tip the balance in favour of unions during negotiations.

[John Mortimer]

Commentators in both countries over the years, especially decades ago, raised questions about the challenges of unionization in the government sector. It is a reality. It's not the same as in the private sector because the people who pay are not at the table. I understand that elected officials and the people who work for them are representative of them, but it is not the same thing when the taxpayer's pocket can be reached into through deficits and debts to a great extent. The data suggests that there's been a significant increase in the number of days, while the divergence between the private sector and the public sector began in 1995 and it has continued to present. It's attributed to different demographics of the workplace, but what I'm not hearing and what I'm not seeing, as a citizen and as a taxpayer, is the research and the effort to solve it.

You're correct. There's nothing in this legislation that will do anything to address the issue.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Good, thank you.

It's clearly laid out, if I can say, that the package in the civil service is more generous than in the private sector. That's what you said.

[John Mortimer]

Yes, and design influences use.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Can you get back a little bit and maybe close in on this absenteeism guide that laid out those problems of sick leave? Can you talk about the absenteeism, and also how you would see that this problem of sick leave could be solved in the civil service sector?

[John Mortimer]

I'm just going to reaffirm what I said in my remarks. This needs to be studied and worked on. I did it as a human resources professional in multi-billion dollar businesses. It can be done in this government and in can be done in partnership with the unions, but we can not endlessly defend people who are real problems and need to be addressed to the denigration of the good work of the other people who pay the price.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Long, please.

[Wayne Long, Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our presenters this afternoon.

I have a question to both Mr. Aylward and Mr. Roberts.

I'm the member of Parliament for Saint John—Rothesay. I feel I have a very open and transparent relationship with the public service, and the UTE and everybody in Saint John. I've met with them over the last couple of years and certainly early in my mandate. I was shocked at how demoralized, how low, they were. To sum it up, their response to me was that they don't feel respected. They continue to be beat down and they're demoralized.

I asked them why? Basically what they said back to me—and I'm paraphrasing here—is that there was antagonism, contempt, demoralization, general bad faith that was targeted towards them and the labour movement.

Minister Clement I think made inflammatory comments regarding public servants and their representatives. He falsely asserted public servants take too much sick leave. That was debunked by StatsCan. Then he voiced a desire to balance the budget on the backs of public service workers like yourselves, cutting sick leave, and he made that announcement and several other announcements during National Public Service Week, which I think was just absolutely wrong and demoralizing.

I'll start with you, Mr. Roberts.

What has our government done to reset that relationship, in terms of what the Conservative legislation certainly intended to do, which was to stack the deck against federal service employees?

Could you please comment on that, Mr. Roberts?

[Chris Roberts]

Yes very quickly.

I think there's an enormous amount of research into the nature and the sources of the problem of demoralization and mental health challenges in the federal public service. I simply steer you to Professor Linda Duxbury, who has done a wealth of research in this area. It's not at all true that we don't have any grasp on the question or how to respond.

You're absolutely right that starting with a different tone is the first approach, which this government to its credit has certainly struck. I think ending the practice of using very misleading comparisons between the private sector and the public sector is an important part of that. When you talk about absenteeism in the public sector, you have to allow for different unionization levels, different age demographics, and the preponderance of female employment in the public sector. Once you do that, the vast majority of difference between private and public sector absenteeism disappears.

Simply throwing out this kind of thing to vilify and demonize public service employees is exactly the wrong way.

[Wayne Long]

Agreed.

Mr. Aylward, I'm going to let you chime in.

[Chris Aylward]

Certainly as I stated in my statement in July 2016, we reached an agreement with, at the time, Minister Brison, who is the President of Treasury Board, to restore our rights pre-Bill C-4. That certainly indicated to us a positive move for sure, and that's why we certainly welcome Bill C-62.

I just want to remind committee members that our members, my 130,000 fellow public sector workers as well as those of my friends in the other bargaining agents, are taxpayers as well.

[Wayne Long]

Mr. Phillips, do you want to chime in there or Mr. Engelmann?

[Peter Engelmann, Partner, Goldblatt Partners LLP, Canadian Association of Professional Employees]

There are ways to fix sick leave issues. The way to do that is not to pass unconstitutional legislation. Do we want sick leave plans that are plans for workers at Wendy's or Tim Hortons for our public servants? No. We want to ensure...and the government has through the last round of bargaining engaged in plans about sick leave concerns. There are letters of understanding and there's movement on that about how to address it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm going to have to cut you off there, Mr. Long.

[Wayne Long]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Madam Trudel, you have four minutes.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for their presentation. My first question is for Mr. Roberts.

In your remarks, you said that amendments are needed to Bill C-62. Please elaborate on the amendments that should be made to Bill C-62.

[Chris Roberts]

I think they have in mind the amendment referred to by my colleagues from the Public Service Alliance of Canada with respect to a passage that's found in both Bill C-62 and the impugned unconstitutional legislation in Saskatchewan, which was addressed specifically by the Saskatchewan judge and indeed in the Supreme Court decision, as I understand it.

In order to avoid risking subsequent challenges along the same lines, I think it would be incumbent on the committee to give close scrutiny to that small provision in Bill C-62 and consider amending it.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Aylward, you mentioned three parts of amendments relating to essential services.

Since 2013, has this had a negative impact? We have heard that over 80% of public service positions had to be deemed essential. Has the current act had a negative impact on you? What effect will the proposed amendments to Bill C-62 have? What positive effects will they have?

[Chris Aylward]

Do you want to respond, Krista?

[Krista Devine, General Counsel and Director of Representation, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

In terms of the impact of the essential services regime that was there, having Bill C-4 in place was deeply problematic for us. You've heard from other unions about the selection of the dispute resolution process. The designation process essentially dictates what dispute resolution process you end up in.

One of the cornerstones of our constitutional challenge related to the Border Services bargaining unit, which Minister Clement had targeted in particular as problematic. Through the legislation and through his introduction to the legislation, he targeted them in particular in terms of the level of essential services designation.

Through Bill C-4, the level of essential services designation was not challengeable before a third party. It was unilateral. It was imposed on us I think the day the legislation was passed or two days after that. I can say with great certainty that it had an impact for that group in particular, as it dictated the dispute resolution process and put into question the framework within which we would be bargaining for the next few years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

To those witnesses who came here today, I'd like to extend my apologies for the craziness of the votes. I really appreciate your patience, and I really appreciate your testimony today. We unfortunately do have two more votes this evening, I believe, which forces us to adjourn right now.

For those sitting around the table, we have 12 minutes and 50 seconds to get to our seats.

Thank you very much, everybody.

The meeting is adjourned.