Evidence of meeting #99 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was servants.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Sandra Hassan  Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Dennis Duggan  Labour Relations Consultant, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Drew Heavens  Executive Director, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Wayne Long  Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Good afternoon, everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 1, 2018, we are considering Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts.

It is our pleasure to welcome to the committee the Honourable Scott Brison, president of the Treasury Board, along with witnesses from the Treasury Board Secretariat's compensation and labour relations sector: Sandra Hassan, assistant deputy minister; Drew Heavens, executive director; and Dennis Duggan, labour relations consultant.

Welcome to all of you.

Mr. Blaney.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Mr. Chair, of course, we welcome the minister and his officials. I was wondering if he had been so kind as to provide a copy of his speech in both official languages.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

We have it, but not in both official languages. That's why it was not distributed.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

In the future, perhaps we could invite ministers to provide us with their documents. It would allow us to follow their speeches a little more closely.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Agreed. Thank you.

On that, Mr. Brison, the next 10 minutes is yours, sir.

3:30 p.m.

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am very pleased to appear before your committee.

I'm pleased to be joined here today by Sandra Hassan, Drew Heavens, and Dennis Duggan from Treasury Board Secretariat.

Our government is committed to restoring fair and balanced public sector labour laws that respect the collective bargaining process, laws that recognize the important role unions play in protecting the rights of workers and helping grow the middle class.

I would like to talk to you today about how BillC-62 helps fulfills these commitments.

Bill C-62 combines Bill C-5 and C-34 that were introduced previously. Bill C-5, which was introduced by our government, dealt with public service sick leave, while Bill C-34 dealt with collective bargaining and essential services.

Combining these two bills into one, as we have, simply incorporates the adjustments necessary to combine the two sets of proposals into one piece of legislation moving forward. Broadly, the objectives of both are shared and related. Combining the bills makes sense. Both are amending the same act and both are related to restoring the balance to the public sector labour relations regime.

I'm going to begin with the changes to sick leave introduced as part of the Conservative omnibus legislation Budget Implementation Act 2015. Division 20 of the Economic Action Plan Act 2015, number one, known at the time as Bill C-59, provided the Treasury Board with the authority to establish and modify terms and conditions of employment related to sick leave of employees, impose a short-term disability plan outside of collective bargaining, and modify the long-term disability programs in the core public administration.

In short, the changes took the issue of sick leave off the negotiating table and gave the government the power to unilaterally impose a plan of its choosing. The bargaining agents for many of the public service unions rightly opposed this legislation, which was drafted without consultation with the public service. In June 2015, 12 of 15 federal unions joined together to file a legal challenge of these provisions, arguing against their constitutionality.

Bill C-62 will eliminate those powers and will show our respect for the collective bargaining process.

Our government knows that the unions play an important role, not only in protecting the rights of the workers, but also in strengthening the middle class.

Again, that is why we committed to not exercise the powers and to repeal the legislation.

I'd like to turn to the issues of essential services, collective bargaining, and dispute resolution. Bill C-62 would repeal the most contentious changes made in 2013 to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. I'm referring to changes that would allow the employer to unilaterally designate essential services, remove bargaining agents' choice when it comes to the conflict resolution process, and impose new factors that arbitrators must consider when making a recommendation or an award.

It's worth recalling that several unions have gone as far as to file charter challenges against the provisions passed in 2013, and we have every reason to believe that these challenges would have succeeded in the courts, in large part because of the experience in Saskatchewan. Back in 2008, the Saskatchewan government introduced changes similar to those found in the omnibus bill that was passed in 2013. They were successfully challenged by the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour before the Supreme Court.

Let me outline the details of the key changes our government is proposing. First, the notice to bargain would be amended to return to a four-month notice period, although the parties may still meet earlier to bargain. Second, bargaining agents would be given the choice to determine which dispute process they wished to use should the parties reach an impasse in the bargaining. Third, when making awards or recommendations, public interest commissions and arbitration boards would have the flexibility to weigh the most important factors in the circumstances before them. They would no longer be forced to give undue weight to certain factors if the circumstances didn't justify it. Fourth, the employer would no longer have the unilateral right to arbitrarily determine which services are essential for the safety and security of the public and to designate the positions necessary to deliver those services. The employer would work with public sector bargaining agents to identify essential service positions and would enter into essential services agreements with them. So the determination would occur as a result of discussion with public sector unions. Finally, Bill C-62 repeals some of the changes made to recourse processes, even though these were never implemented, because they were to be brought into force at a later date.

Mr. Chair, and committee members, our government is committed to restoring a culture of respect for and within the public service, and to respecting the collective bargaining process. When we took office in 2015, all the collective bargaining agreements with public servants had in fact expired. Some of them had been expired for four years. We made it clear that we would work collaboratively with public servants and that we would negotiate in good faith. After two years of respectful negotiations, we have reached 23 of 27 agreements. That means, I believe, that more than 94% of unionized public servants for which Treasury Board is the employer now have collective bargaining agreements in place. It's worth noting that with most of the agreements, including an undertaking to develop an integrated approach to the management of employee wellness, our collaborative approach is achieving results. It's an approach that embodies the values of fairness and justice that make Canada the country it is today. We have a world-class public service in Canada, and one that is recognized as such in terms of its effectiveness and its professionalism

Bill C-62 affirms the values of treating our public service with respect and in partnership by understanding and responding to the need for fair and balanced labour laws in Canada.

I want to thank members of the committee for their attention. I look forward to your questions and to engaging with this committee.

Thank you very much.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you, Minister.

First up with questions is MP Blaney.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Welcome to the committee once more, Mr. Minister.

I appreciate your empathy for the members of the federal public service. I was a member too before I became a politician. Our public servants provide us with a huge number of services.

However, in your speech, I would have liked to hear one point in particular, in your capacity as President of the Treasury Board. You talked about respect for public service workers, but what about respect for taxpayers? As I already told you in another meeting, that responsibility falls to you. In a sense, you are the government’s anti-Santa Claus.

Now that you are halfway through your mandate, I have to tell you that I have no compliments for you, because you seem to have lost control of budgetary expenditures. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us today that the deficit for the current year will likely reach $22 billion, almost four times more than the Prime Minister’s promise to us. In addition, interest on the national debt is going to increase by almost $40 billion, almost two-thirds more than in this current year. That is clearly much more than you promised. So you have lost control of expenditures.

However, my concern this afternoon is about the loss of control over the public service.

First, can you tell me the number of public servants hired last year?

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Thank you for the question, Mr. Blaney.

Our government has shown respect for taxpayers by reducing taxes on the middle class. At the same time…

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Excuse me for interrupting you, Mr. Minister…

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

…our government has achieved results…

Let me finish my answer, please.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Mr. Minister, I do not have a lot of time available.

Actually, you have increased taxes on the middle class. What I want to know is the increase in the number of public servants last year.

It is an important question. In 2015, the previous government’s Bill C-59 forecast savings of $900 million. Now, by giving out benefits, your bill has wiped out those savings. My question is important because, not only are we going to lose those savings of $900 million, but you are also hiring new public servants. Are we coming close to $1 billion in losses with the measures that you are proposing to us?

So my question is simple: how many new public servants were hired last year, please?

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Blaney, you started your question by talking about our respect for taxpayers. So I answered your question and I am going to repeat my answer.

We have a lot of respect for the middle class, and that is why we have reduced its taxes. In addition, our government has achieved results, since Canada has experienced the best economic growth among G7 countries in 10 years. Those figures are therefore completely appropriate, given your question.

That said, we will find the exact number you are looking for.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

If you do not have the figures at hand today, Mr. Minister, I really would like you to send the information to the committee. I want to know by how many the public service has increased in the last two years. I would like to have that information. We know that savings of $900 million were forecast, but the increase in the number of public servants is going to wipe out those savings and cause an even greater loss.

I am indeed talking about respect for taxpayers, Mr. Minister. First of all, as we know, you have increased taxes on the middle class; the Fraser Institute has proved that. In addition, when you negotiate with public servants, you also have to represent the interests of those who pay their salaries. It is very easy to accede to the demands made to you; you say yes to almost every expenditure. However, we need somebody to say that we do in fact have to deal with the public service properly, but in so doing, we must also consider the taxpayers’ ability to pay. That is why I would have liked to hear you say this afternoon that it is important to respect the taxpayers’ ability to pay when the time comes to negotiate compensation for the public service.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Blaney, it is possible to show respect for taxpayers and for the public service at the same time. That is exactly what we are doing and what we will continue to do.

We have presented taxpayers—all Canadians in fact—with good economic results. We have recorded the best economic growth among all G7 countries. We are negotiating with taxpayers in good faith and we are making investments that will benefit communities and families all across Canada. In order to do so, it is true that we have to constantly count on the support of the public service and we will continue to do so because it is very important to be able to produce results.

We acknowledge the great importance of the public service. That is why we are investing in the public service and we are going to continue along those lines.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you.

MP Morrissey, please, for six minutes.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

Thank you, Chair.

My question, Mr. Minister, is a follow-up to the opposition's question about treating our public servants well, which I feel is extremely important.

One issue that public servants raised a lot with me during the 2015 campaign was their loss of accumulated sick leave because of measures by the former Conservative government. Mr. Minister, could you speak to the impact of this bill as it relates to those public servants' accumulated sick leave, and sick leave in general? This is extremely important for these public servants and really indicates which particular party treats public servants well.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

The decision by the previous government to unilaterally eliminate the sick leave provisions without any negotiations with the public service unions, taking that completely off the bargaining table where it really belongs, was done for one reason and one reason only, and that was to book $900 million in illusory savings to contribute to an illusory surplus on the eve of an election. It was irresponsible to do that because, of course, subsequently there was a court challenge. I don't think it's good practice to book savings in a budget when the matter is being challenged in the courts. It was not dissimilar to the decision to eliminate 700 pay advisers to save $70 million a year, which helped enfeeble the pay system.

We've sat down with the public sector unions, with whom we've negotiated in good faith. As a government, we have a a strong interest in strengthening our overall wellness plan for the public service. The current system, for instance, doesn't treat particularly well young public servants who may only have been in the public service for a short period of time and may develop a very serious illness. If you've been in the public service a long time, the sick leave provisions are quite comprehensive, but for newer public servants, the provisions don't necessarily recognize those who encounter serious or chronic illness. As a result, we've been looking at and developing a whole new centre for diversity, inclusion, and wellness within the public service that would help develop a more modern approach to wellness in the public service writ large. We're doing this in negotiations with the unions. We will, I believe, develop an approach that will be very fair to taxpayers, citizen, and public servants at the same time. It's very important to realize that public servants are citizens and taxpayers as well, which is why when we demonstrate respect for them, it's in no way inconsistent with doing what is right for taxpayers. In fact, I would argue that a well-functioning public service is achieved through a respectful relationship with its employer, the Government of Canada.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

Mr. Minister, as a result of this legislation you are promoting today, can you ensure that public servants will have a sick leave system that works for them and doesn't allow anybody to fall through the cracks?

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Bob, one of the things we want to accomplish and achieve is to modernize the sick leave system as it is right now. I believe that right now the current sick leave system does not necessarily do enough for somebody who has been in the public service for a shorter period of time. If you take a young person who has been in the public service for just a few years but may develop a very serious illness, it doesn't necessarily provide you with enough flexibility.

I think there are ways we can modernize it to build a more efficient, user-centric, patient-centric approach. For instance, there's mental health. It is something that is very important for our government, and we've worked with the public sector unions, with the joint council, to do a very serious study on mental health within the workplace for the federal public service. It is one area where I think we need to raise the bar in how we're doing it.

Sandra may want to add to that.

3:50 p.m.

Sandra Hassan Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

As the minister indicated, the current sick leave regime can sometimes be disadvantageous to employees who have not been in the public service for a long time, but who do get either sick or have an accident, for example. If you've been in the public service for quite some time, you can have a bank of sick days, which younger employees don't have. It doesn't mean that they're not exposed to having accidents, concussions, or any type of serious illness that would put their economic and physical security at risk.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bryan May

Thank you.

MP Trudel, for six minutes.

April 23rd, 2018 / 3:50 p.m.

NDP

Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for your presentation, and welcome to the committee.

First of all, I want to focus on two aspects of the provisions of the Canada Labour Code dealing with the rights of Canadians to refuse dangerous work. I would like to focus more specifically on the definition of “danger”. The definition has changed: before 2013, it was more complete. If I may, I will read it to you:

…any existing or potential hazard or condition or any current or future activity that could reasonably be expected to cause injury or illness to a person exposed to it before the hazard or condition can be corrected, or the activity altered, whether or not the injury or illness occurs immediately after the exposure to the hazard, condition or activity, and includes any exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to result in a chronic illness, in disease or in damage to the reproductive system.

The definition in Bill C-62 is much more simple, but it does not say a lot. I find that it does not cover workers very well:

…any hazard, condition or activity that could reasonably be expected to be an imminent or serious threat to the life or health of a person exposed to it before the hazard or condition can be corrected or the activity altered.

Could you talk about the definitions of “danger”? I would like to know why we have kept this definition in the bill, rather than the one that existed before 2013.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Thank you very much for your question.

I agree with you about the importance of the safety of workers in workplaces. I also recognize that my colleague Minister Hajdu is working to strengthen workers’ protection in workplaces.

Perhaps Mr. Duggan can also answer the question.

3:50 p.m.

Dennis Duggan Labour Relations Consultant, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

You're correct. The changes to this particular act under discussion today, the PSLRA, were all made at the same time in the original bill. However, this particular bill does not deal with those particular changes or amendments. They're part of the Canada Labour Code and the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, Minister Hajdu.