Human Resources Committee on April 30th, 2018

[Sandra Hassan]

I can ask.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You can ask.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have only about 10 seconds, so maybe a comment but no question.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay, I'll pick it up later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

MP Sangha, go ahead, please.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for today's input. It's very valuable.

My question is to Ms. Hassan. During your presentation you talked about the dispute resolution process. I know it's a very legally binding award when it's delivered by the arbitrator. Otherwise, if you choose a dispute process through collective bargaining, it's not binding.

Secondly, there's no provision to strike in the arbitration process, whereas when there's conciliation, you can strike and during this strike, processes can also be maintained.

What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of conciliation and arbitration?

[Sandra Hassan]

The processes have different outcomes, and under C-62, it is the bargaining agent who will be in a position to choose which one of the two processes they wish to adopt.

In the first case, as I indicated to Madam Trudel, when they're in the conciliation strike, the parties—the bargaining agent and the employer—would submit their positions to a public interest commission and that public interest commission would provide a report after their analysis, but unless the parties choose otherwise, the report is non-binding.

Consequently, once the report is released, steps are taken, and the bargaining unit can be in a strike position. They could strategically, at the beginning of the round, decide that instead of that, they would prefer the arbitration route. In that case, they again submit their positions to an arbitrator, but that arbitrator's report is binding on the parties, so it ends the discussion. It puts the final decision in regard to that round in the hands of someone else completely.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

If collective bargaining is there, then there's a possibility of conciliation or some sort of settlement between both the parties, which will not have a legally binding effect until and unless they choose it. Parties can choose to be legally bound by that conciliation.

[Sandra Hassan]

That is true.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Otherwise, it's open.

[Sandra Hassan]

That is true.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

With this type of method, what will be the impact on the total length of the dispute resolution process?

[Sandra Hassan]

The arbitration, once the report is handed down, puts an end to the round because the report will form the next collective agreement.

In the conciliation mode, it's longer because once we get the report from the public interest commission—because it's non-binding—the parties are not only more than welcome, but are invited to continue discussions to be able to come to an agreement if they don't completely agree with the public interest commission's report.

Dennis, go ahead.

[Dennis Duggan, Senior Labour Relations Consultant, Compensation and Labour Relations, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Excuse me, I just want to add to that.

Occasionally—and it does happen this way—the conciliation board, or in this case the public interest commission's report, can be unanimous. This actually means that the parties agreed with the report, which results in a settlement. Often in this process, in terms of conciliation with a public interest commission, there's a lot of mediation going on—by the board and by the commission working with the parties to reach a settlement—so it serves as a means by which the parties can achieve a settlement. It's a tool that way, but it's occasionally through the process that they actually achieve a settlement in the process.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

The right to strike is still available now...?

[Dennis Duggan]

If there is no agreement at that point, yes.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Do you think there is a possibility of any charter right being questioned? Under Saskatchewan law there was a charter right that was abrogated, and that's why that court case was—

[Dennis Duggan]

In terms of essential services, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Be very quick, please.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Is there any possibility of a charter right question now?

[Sandra Hassan]

The bargaining agents have a file, a constitutional challenge to the current legislation, and it has been put in abeyance with the understanding that the current government would repeal it, but certainly if the legislation is not repealed, the bargaining agent, I would suspect, would restart the charter challenge, and their main argument is that the current legislation is very similar to the legislation that was enacted in Saskatchewan and declared unconstitutional.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

What remedy do you—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I have to cut you off there, guys. I'm sorry. Maybe we'll come back around to that.

Mr. Warawa, go ahead, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

I have some questions for Correctional Service of Canada.

I think your report said there are 18,000 staff across the country with the Correctional Service, and you listed off varying levels of what they do: front-line corrections officers, parole officers. Let me stop at corrections officers. Maximum, medium, and minimum security each involve different levels of responsibility and stress. Having been on the community advisory board when I was in local government, the Matsqui Institution, compared with Kent Institution or Mountain Institution, the levels of stress on staff are vastly different.

Anyway, I am so thankful for people who are serving Canada in that way. They definitely need to be properly compensated and protected, and if they're sick—and we've heard from a recent report that 53% of RCMP officers are struggling with different levels of PTSD with what they face. When you are in a maximum security institution and you have awful stuff thrown at you—dirty cocktails—and there are people with shanks, it's a very dangerous environment.

Somebody who is a parole officer has not nearly the level of stress. Program delivery officers, health professionals, electricians, food service staff, corporate administration—it depends on what you're doing what the stress level is. I would assume that people in higher-stress types of jobs would have a greater chance of needing some sick time off. That's an assumption. I don't know if it's accurate.

My question is related to an article from January of last year in Maclean's, which highlighted the disparity in the number of sick days that are available to the public sector as opposed to the private sector. In the public sector it was 13.5 and in the private sector it was 8.3. They said that in the public sector, union agreements allow federal employees to take up to 15 work days off each year over and above their vacation time—15 days of each year—and that federal employees had banked 15 million days of unused sick leave.

I also read that three-quarters of your funding for Corrections Canada is for staffing and benefits for staff. One-quarter of your funding is for actually taking care of very dangerous people who pose a risk to the community. With these changes, are you going to have increased funding from the federal government to accommodate the additional cost for sick leave when you have people gone and maybe have a shortage of staff? That's one question.

The other question is on essential service. The average Canadian would assume that corrections would be deemed an essential service, that you're not going to strike and not show up; otherwise, you're going to have chaos and people killed, riots, and very dangerous situations. Can you give us an example of which federal corrections would not be deemed an essential service? It sounds as though Bill C-62 would have that on the table, which I think Canadians would find very unreasonable.

Could you comment on those two? Are you going to get increased funding to pay for this $1.3 billion, and what happens on essential services?

[Kristel Henderson]

Firstly, budget 2018 proposed certain measures for the Correctional Service that maintained operating budgets.

In terms of your second question—