Human Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We're back.

I would like to take this opportunity to reintroduce the members of the Treasury Board Secretariat here today. From the compensation and labour relations sector, we have Sandra Hassan, assistant deputy minister; Drew Heavens, executive director; and Dennis Duggan, labour relations consultant.

Again, welcome to all three of you. Thank you for being here today.

We'll continue with questions. Our first questioner comes from the opposition side.

Monsieur Blaney.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for joining us in this second hour.

I have two questions for you in the time I am allowed.

Earlier, someone asked the Minister if he had held consultations. We deduced from his answer that he had consulted the unions.

Here is what I would like to know: before proceeding with these amendments, did the Treasury Board hold consultations with Canadians?

[Sandra Hassan]

No. The Treasury Board Secretariat held no consultations, other than those it held with the unions.

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

Okay. Thank you for giving me a clear answer.

In the first hour, a lot of questions have had to do with the changes to public service sick leave. It was estimated that there were potential savings of $900 million there. Based on the figures that we have been given. I have calculated that the public service has increased by approximately 5% in two years. If possible, we would really like you to provide committee members with a table.

We have talked about that expenditure of $1 billion, but Bill C-62 proposes other measures. Specifically, sections 32 and 33 repeal several provisions in a previous bill that should have come into effect, but that is now apparently to be repealed. I would like to know why they did not come into affect and why you want to repeal them. I am astonished that you want to eliminate them. I am talking about three provisions in particular. First of all, there were the amendments on grievances. We also wanted to change the complaint procedure for layoffs and internal appointments. We also wanted to give the employer more flexibility in managing the public service. I imagine that those measures were of interest to the Treasury Board. What astonishes me even more is that you want to illuminate the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to examine complaints of discrimination.

Is it possible for you to explain to me why those aspects were taken out of the legislation, please?

[Sandra Hassan]

Before I give you an answer, I would like some clarification. You asked us to send you a table. What about exactly?

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

I am talking about the figures that you gave us just now about the growth in the public service. Clearly, there are federal public service employees and Crown corporation employees. I have a figure of 273,600 people. Does that include all federal employees?

[Sandra Hassan]

That figure includes the employees of the various agencies and those of the core public service.

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

Okay. I know that a lot of that data can be found in annual reports, but could you provide them to us, if possible? They are actually quite recent.

Let me go back to my question: why does the current bill eliminate the amendments made to the process of grievances and complaints, and remove the Canadian Human Rights Commission from its role in examining complaints?

[Drew Heavens]

I will answer that question.

On the recourse provisions that you're referring to, none of them were actually brought into force after Bill C-4 came into force. They were to come into force through an order in council that never actually happened.

The package of reforms that were in that section dealing with employer recourse made some changes that were meant to streamline some of the recourse processes. Take, for example, the one about taking away the right of employees to file human rights complaints in lieu of a grievance. Some saw that as taking away some fundamental human rights from employees, because the human rights act has different provisions from the labour relations act.

I can't say for certain why those were put into place before, but again, like the rest of the legislation, it will all be repealed by Bill C-62.

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

In terms of the complaint process for layoffs, the amendments made were never put into effect and now the bill intends to eliminate them. Is that correct?

[Drew Heavens]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

I would like to go back to Mrs. Hassan.

I was a little surprised with your answer to Mrs. Falk. You said that there was a framework. In fact, the bill that our government introduced was going to generate $900 million in savings. The bill that the current government is introducing is going to repeal those measures. Does it not seem logical to you to deduce that, if what had been done is undone, we are also giving up on the savings that went with it? Broadly speaking, it will be costing the state $1 billion to keep the current system. You certainly have evaluated those costs. Even if you are going to negotiate, it seems to me that you should know the range of the amounts that you will be paying out.

Could you share those amounts with us, or do you prefer to remain in your limbo?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Speak very briefly, please.

[Sandra Hassan]

I have given you the information at my disposal and that I am in a position to share with you.

My answer is the same. As long as we have no new system and no defined parameters, I would be giving you a figure at my peril.

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

The peril lies in knowing that $900 million had been saved and that the Minister of Finance has removed that source of savings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

MP Sangha, go ahead, please.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.

Any of you can answer my question as follows. After Saskatchewan's essential services legislation was struck down by the constitutional issue—and there are a few parts in Bill C-4 similar to the previous one—I have a concern as a lawyer by profession whether or not we're sure this time that we have taken care, in Bill C-62, of all of the problematic issues so we can avoid the constitutional questions.

[Dennis Duggan]

We believe so. After reviewing the Supreme Court decision in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case, we did take a very close look at our current legislation, and in the process of looking at essentially returning to the previous regime, we've addressed some of the core issues in creating a balance. For example, the legislation restores the ability of bargaining agents to negotiate essential services provisions or designations with the employer. As well, should an impasse be reached in that process, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board would be able to determine any impasse, unlike in the current act, and indeed, unlike in the legislation in Saskatchewan that was at issue.

As well, and concomitantly, bargaining agents will once again, once this bill receives royal assent, be able to choose their dispute resolution mechanism in the event of an impasse in bargaining, which gives a huge advantage for bargaining agents representing their members, because now they can choose arbitration or conciliation strike, and as I said, once they choose the conciliation strike process, they actually get a say in the numbers of designations and the types of designations.

So in a sense what you will do with the legislation is to restore a balance that had previously existed. Having looked at it in light of the Saskatchewan legislation, we're confident that it's constitutionally compliant.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Actually, I believe the right to strike was taken away by other legislation. Do you think those types of rights do exist in the new legislation?

[Dennis Duggan]

The right to strike certainly does.

What the essential services provisions do is to allow those areas—and certainly even the Supreme Court contemplates this—so that the safety and security interests of the public can be protected in this way. However, it's the balance that you need to strike that gives the bargaining agents—since they're the parties who are interested in a strike, if that's the process they choose—the ability to assist in the determination of the numbers of employees who would be designated as essential. It's not a unilateral choice anymore.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

MP Trudel, please.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

I have a question about the coming into force of the provisions of Bill C-4. Some provisions have been repealed, but not all of them. I would like to know whether any collective agreements were finalized during that period.

[Sandra Hassan]

Yes. Since November 2016, 23 out of 27 collective agreements have been reached. That is to say that negotiations have been conducted quite intensively in the last two years.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Given the amendments made to the framework of Bill C-62, did those people lose out? Did the negotiations put them at a disadvantage?

We are now dealing with those issues in the context of Bill C-62,but, in their case, were they able to negotiate under the previous legislation?