Human Resources Committee on April 30th, 2018

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

That is a good question.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

[Marc Thibodeau]

That is a very interesting question.

In arbitration, the tough decisions in the final settlement are left to a third party, while in a negotiation, when there is access to the right to strike, you are essentially obliged to come to an understanding. So it is a matter of meeting each other halfway, according to the view that the union may take, according to its reading of the facts, in terms of its negotiating power and its power to choose.

That is how I would answer your question.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Does anyone want to add anything?

[Sandra Hassan]

During the conciliation process, the parties appear before a public interest commission. This third party hears the parties and submits a report at the end of the process. However, this report is non-binding on the parties: They are not required to follow the commission's recommendations.

During arbitration, people also appear before a third party and state their case. However, this third party's report puts an end to the process, meaning that it is binding on the parties and fundamentally becomes the new collective agreement. It is possible that the bargaining agents prefer to have the right to continue to negotiate for strategic reasons.

Once the report is submitted, choosing conciliation can potentially lead to a strike, but it can also lead to further discussion on the aspects covered by the report. It is a strategic issue for bargaining agents. They must ask themselves if it is preferable to give the last word to a third party, or to retain the possibility of continuing talks with the employer, even after the third party has given its opinion on the work conditions and the disputes.

All in all, these are the distinctions to be made.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

From what I understand, the current bill makes it possible to choose between conciliation and arbitration, whereas the 2013 bill did not allow conciliation.

[Sandra Hassan]

The process was mandated by the legislation, and depended on the percentage of people within the unit who were identified as being part of the essential services. It wasn't really a choice: It depended on the legislative provision.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mrs. Hassan, in your opening statement, you talked about the preponderant factors. Can you please tell us more about them? Can you also talk about the advantages, disadvantages and requirements related to these factors?

[Sandra Hassan]

Bill C-62 includes certain factors that can be considered. These factors are taken into consideration by a third party when the parties' requests are being evaluated.

Under the current legislation, public interest commissions, during conciliations, or arbitrators, during arbitrations, must prioritize two factors — retention and recruitment — as well as Canada's current financial situation. This gives perspective. The third party must give more weight to these two factors than to the other factors. Clearly, this influences decision-making.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Morrissey, go ahead, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

My question is to Ms. Henderson.

You made a comment that budget 2015 had an impact on the sick leave provisions. One of the criticisms of this bill, a criticism coming from the opposition, is that reinstating those provisions of sick leave will impose a cost to the taxpayer. The number that's been used is $900,000 in cash.

There's been some question as to how the savings were booked by the former government—the costs that were booked and the savings of $900,000 in cash savings—and whether that was real or not, because the Parliamentary Budget Officer found in a July 2014 report that sick leave cost almost nothing.

Could you comment on that?

[Kristel Henderson]

Basically what this bill proposes to do is to return the sick leave regime to the negotiations process. The impact of the costs of sick leave.... Currently the collective agreements contain provisions around sick leave; therefore, there's an allotted number of sick leave days and there's a disability regime that is in place. What Bill C-4 proposed to do was to remove that and impose a sick leave regime that would impose upon the public service the new regime and disability plan, as well.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Do you have any knowledge of the cost numbers of that?

[Kristel Henderson]

Knowledge of the...?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Of the cost implications of that sick leave when it was done.

I would go, then, to Ms. Hassan because part of yours is to provide advice and guidance to departments on compensation.

[Sandra Hassan]

In regard to the costing, what we do know is that in February 2016, in a document called “The Canadian Economic Outlook”, the Department of Finance reversed the sick leave savings—that's what we see—and the cost is close to $1.3 billion. That's the costing as we see it.

In regard to your specific question is...?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You're referencing the particular numbers that you had there at that particular time. In 2014, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who we routinely hear being quoted, reported that there was no cost. Sick leave cost almost nothing because of a lot of the positions are not particularly backfilled.

[Sandra Hassan]

It is true that if on a given day a person calls in sick and is not replaced we can notionally say there's no cost, although there's a loss of productivity.

In terms of what the total cost of the sick leave is, if we look at the total number of days that are on the books, it doesn't mean that everyone will be taking all of those days, but if you calculate the cost associated with that liability, that's the number that has been booked by the Department of Finance.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

When was there a change in the accounting process dealing with how sick leave was to be accounted for?

[Sandra Hassan]

I cannot answer that question.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Why did government make the change when it did? It was referenced in the budget 2015 budget documents, so the change was made at that time.

[Sandra Hassan]

You're asking why at a certain point the Department of Finance decided to reverse the savings? If that is the question, the answer would be when the Liberal government committed to proposed legislation to repeal the Bill C-59.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Could you just walk us through the difference on how it actually records within the government's fiscal position. Is it a cash cost or is it actually a paper entry?

[Sandra Hassan]

I'm not in a position to answer that question. It would be the Department of Finance who could answer that. I'm not in a position to answer that.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Is that information you could get and provide back?