Paul Forseth

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2002-03, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the President of the Treasury Board if she can assure this House that the bill is presented in its usual form?

(On clause 2)

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a note about the concept of courageous compassion. We are not there shoulder to shoulder with our soldiers, but we hear the discussion that we are going to be there to put Iraq together afterward. But because we are not there now there is no guarantee that we are really going to be there later because we will not be running the show.

We have already seen the unloading of compassionate aid coming in once the port was secured. That operation of humanitarian aid and compassion is already underway, and we are not part of it.

Can the member talk a little about courageous compassion and what this is all about? It is for our security but certainly also for the humanitarian aspect of the people of Iraq.

[Firearms Registry, March 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Centre for Research and Information on Canada asked, “Should Canada's national firearms registry be retained or should it be abolished?” In response, 95% said that it should be abolished.

The public knows what the government refuses to admit. It is all about the wise use of public money for a helpful social purpose, value for money.

Since the government did not want to expose its plans to full parliamentary scrutiny, as it was just making them up as it went along, disproportionate spending was put through under supplementary estimates and not identified in a line item as a clear major crown project in the main estimates process. The government will have spent a billion on the long gun registry by 2004-05.

The department obtained about 70% of its registry funding through the supplementary estimates, an admission that it had no idea about unfolding costs.

The Liberals made a wasteful, hurtful mistake because of their political blindness and ideological stubbornness. The spending behaviour of the justice minister reveals once again that the Liberals are not competent to govern.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, my friend across the way is always known for more sound and bluster than substance. I want to get back to some of the earlier comments he made. He deliberately confused public safety and gun control with the long gun registration program. Those things are not the same.

In the House we daily ask the government how much it would cost to get to the full operational status of the Bill C-68 program and thereafter how much it would cost every year. We have not been able to get the numbers. The minister had lots of chances to supply the answer and he did not.

When it came to the Auditor General, the problem with the numbers was that she asked the government for the documentation and the costs, but she was not satisfied with the information given, saying basically that she could not get the information from the government. The evidence of the Auditor General yesterday in committee was that she could not get the information.

Asked to verify the so-called puffed numbers that the government provided, the Auditor General could not verify that they were based on anything legitimate which came out of the department. We must be very careful when we talk about the so-called cost, what it may have cost or what the department is alleging it cost. The Auditor General clearly has said that within the foreseeable future the whole program would cost in the nature of $1 billion plus. That is where the vernacular in the common press comes from about the billion dollars.

When the member talks specifically about honesty with the numbers, he should accurately reflect what actually happened in the committee.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the rosy approach over there, I am wondering if the member could respond to a couple of points.

The first is the understanding that internationally we are in a competitive market, especially as related to the United States and tax rates. As the American government continues to provide tax relief and relative tax rates for the individual taxpayer, Canada increasingly has become uncompetitive. Since our economies are so intertwined, we need to catch up to the Americans. Otherwise the brain drain is going to continue. What are the prospects for the continuing high income tax rates that we have in Canada as compared to those in the United States?

The other issue is that projected spending for the next three years is up significantly, perhaps by some 27%, which is way ahead of how the economy is going to grow, even in the most rosy of expectations. How wise is it to outline in a statement to the international community that we will continue to spend at increasing rates, rates beyond the wildest dreams of how our economy could ever grow?

Those are two worrisome signals that I think we are sending to the international community. Would the member like to respond to those matters?

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the number of nice to haves on the spending list. That certainly is a characterization of this budget. It looks like it was a Christmas shopping list coming a little late.

However there is an underlying, very worrying principle that I want the member to address. The increase in spending projected over the next three years is larger than any of the most optimistic increases in the development of the economy. When a future plan for a nation is laid out where the government will continue to tax at high levels and increasingly spend at greater and greater levels, faster than the economy can ever grow, that means that we are not in wise hands and we are going to get into great difficulty.

It is the old adage: the government taxes too much, therefore winds up spending too much and we still owe too much.

On the calculation of the national debt it is interesting to see that there has been a little correction. Somehow the national debt calculation has been revised by just a mere $27 billion. That certainly affects the overall debt to GDP ratio. One wonders what happened with the bookkeeping when $27 billion is misplaced somewhere.

How wise is it to increase spending each year far beyond what the economy will grow? That certainly is heading for trouble as far as I am concerned and I do not see anything in the budget to address it.

[Public Service Modernization Act, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was outlining how the planned restrictions on public employees getting involved in politics is too restrictive. I am encouraged however because the minister told me during the break that she will have a second look at this section of the bill.

Throughout public service various oaths are taken. In Bill C-25 it has been observed that the oaths described do not refer to the Queen or to God. I view the more modern oaths for employee loyalty and non-disclosure for privacy as a contractual concept between employee and employer. There was some concern in the media about an apparent change in the oaths. An example is written in part 4, clause 54 of the bill.

It is my view that the oath is acceptable and reflects the recognition of standards for a modern business culture. The oath reflects a condition of employment that is contractual between the employee and the employer. The oath is job specific and is unrelated to the status of Parliament, the Queen or religion.

The Canadian Centre for Management Development Act will be renamed the Canada school of public service act. The purpose is to integrate learning activities in the public service. Training and Development Canada, which is currently administered by the PSC, and the Canadian Centre for Management Development will be amalgamated into a new institution of learning called the Canada school of public service.

Through this action it is hoped that the government will be mindful of the Justice Institute of British Columbia and its experience in public service training for many disciplines, the cross system synergies that can be found and also comprehend the capacity to market the school around the world.

It is hoped that this new federal school will have a broad mandate and that any permanent employee can apply for the use of its services. It is hoped that the school's mandate will be delivered under its auspices across the country as close as possible to where federal employees work and reside.

It is also hoped that partnerships will be strengthened with various universities, especially those with schools of public administration like the University of Victoria for example. The possibilities are limitless as Canada can sell its expertise around the world. With an outward attitude for participation rather than the Canadian tendency to isolate ourselves from world trouble, we could become the world's standard bearer to bring civil society and trusted public institutions to emerging democracies.

I also want to talk about the duty of public employees to observe and report wrongdoing, and having some protection so they do not bear retaliation for speaking up. The minister provided me with a long memo about “the policy on the internal disclosure of information concerning wrongdoing in the workplace”, which became effective in November 2001. Despite wide dissemination, I wonder how many public employees are aware of this system-wide policy. I doubt that many generally know of it. The policy is to allow employees to bring forward information concerning wrongdoing and to ensure that they are treated fairly and are protected from reprisal when they do so in a manner consistent with the policy.

I say to the minister that a long memo and attempts to have it circulated are not good enough. The memo could be rescinded tomorrow. The basic policy needs to be noted in the statute, something to the effect that Treasury Board will establish, observe and report wrongdoing policy for the public service and that the exercise of that policy in good faith will protect employees from activity that could be interpreted as reprisal. It need not be a long section. However the memo needs to have a basis in the statute in law, and the actual details would then form part of the volumes that Treasury Board produces for conduct.

We on this side of the House observe that the government has a big problem of morale in the public service. Many are stressed out and many are very cynical about anything changing for the better. The top levels want to leave and there may be a wave of retirements coming. Employees have seen many projects like universal classification, reorganization schemes and pronouncements by governments, come and go. Therefore they may be looking at this bill as just another one of those.

The data shows that worker satisfaction is declining. I can certainly tell the minister that consumer satisfaction with services from federal agencies is certainly declining.

Let me be specific on that one for a minute. All of what we do here in this place is for the country. We work for the citizens and they pay all the bills. When we start to legislate and reorganize the public service, we have to talk about the public for whom all of this is supposed to be.

Government likes to change things form the top downwards. We think of a Lee Iacoca coming in and saving the basket case of Chrysler Corporation, or the new chief executive officer at IBM coming in to save old blue, driving change from the top with a new vision, a new leader, new ways of doing things. However, when we make such efforts, where do we put in the equation for the customer, the consumer, the taxpayer, the driving from the bottom up approach?

Being a grassroots reformer type of person, I am always looking at the grassroots perspective. Of course, being a politician I must always assess where the community opinion is. Understanding that in the public service we do not have real market forces, one has to assess the corrective power of consumers in a different way. One cannot go to a different store window and say, “Well, because we are not getting service from the immigration department, we will just go to some other window and get immigration service there”.

We must look at customer satisfaction to assess our accomplishments for the public service. For example, if an average Canadian citizen goes abroad and marries someone, it may take up to three years to get landed immigrant status for a basic no problem file. The newlyweds could be separated for years. This is actually happening in Canada right now. That low standard of performance is just absolutely ridiculous.

The next example concerns the CCRA. We will all be filing out income tax forms soon and they are unreasonably complicated. When we see the distress of senior citizens trying to cope with these forms, we wonder who is serving whom. We can go down the list. For instance, I was at a town hall meeting with war veterans, seniors trying to communicate and get benefits due to them. With the initiative of government online and the emergence of automated call centres, the government is actually retreating from and disappearing from the clients that it is supposed to serve.

In so many ways the system is completely backwards, as the taxpayer has to go to unusual lengths to accommodate the bureaucracy, when it should be the other way around where the system has a duty to accommodate and also effectively communicate with those it is supposed to serve.

How do we give the best value for dollar, for the money that has been taken from voters? Will they get a passport when they need it in a timely manner? Will they be protected from terrorists who come here as bogus refugees? Is our Canada pension plan threatened by unwise plays and mounting losses on the stock market? Will a soldier receive extra help when he needs it when he gets home? Does our democracy work? These are public service employee issues.

I suggest the bill is just a small start at the beginning of a long process to get us out of a bad state. The collaboration the minister talks about with the unions can begin right here, right now in the House, by allowing the bill to be continued to be built by the pragmatic expertise and goodwill in the chamber.

She may defend the House against those vested interests deep in the Treasury Board, in the PCO, in the PMO who are saying why things cannot be done and why the opposition cannot be trusted for having sound judgment or having a concept of the bigger picture.

I commend the minister for her enterprise. I commit that we on the official opposition side will be constructive, for the last thing we desire is to play politics with the lives of public employees, for we all desire that Canada become the very best.

My House leader has asked me, because of manoeuvres on the other side related to private members' business, that all legislation will have an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-25, an act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

[Public Service Modernization Act, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, 2003, the President of the Treasury Board of Canada and member for Westmount—Ville-Marie introduced in Parliament legislation claiming that it would modernize human resources management in the federal public service.

Bill C-25 brings with it a fair amount of Liberal boasting when the minister says the bill is the first wide-ranging legislation reform of human resources management in over 35 years. She says the current system is cumbersome and outdated. I have to ask, who has been minding the store for over nine years? We know that union and management do not get along. However, legislation alone will not save the government in labour relations.

The federal government gets the union behaviour it deserves or, more specifically, the Liberals have historically set the tone as the employer that has created its own unreasonable response from the union side. With this bill, the minister now finally admits that a more collaborative, consultative approach is needed. She is right, but the government has only arrived here in this last year. How fairly did it negotiate when it took over $30 billion out of the workers' pension plan. That whole story sounded more like basic theft rather than negotiations. Employees remember bitterly.

My point is that all the joint councils in the world will not solve the human problem. Consultative and collaborative mechanisms can be created everywhere, but until there is a government that has an inherent philosophy that values employees and over time earns their respect by being always fair and honest with its workers, it will not realize its stated hopes for a balanced approach for human resources modernization.

Before me I see a bill of technicalities. Where is the commitment by the government to a set of values it would impose on itself first while, through this bill, it is prescribing values for others? Through this legislation it is prescribing values for the public service. I am sorry, we are now going to call it public administration. Where, at the same time in this so-called new era, is the government boldly describing self-imposed standards through which it could actually earn respect and create a culture of cooperation with workers?

The Liberals should apologize to Canadians and come clean with workers about broken promises. A new culture and climate must come from government first. It is my assertion that more can be accomplished in 10 minutes when everyone has learned through experience to trust each other and that they can all pull together than what could be accomplished in 10 years of bureaucracy making and rules manoeuvring.

I am talking about leadership. Leadership for a country so that we have some idea where we are going and we have a set of ideals of circumspection for political conduct as we journey on that national road to the future as a society. Wise and inspirational leadership is the only way in the long term for the grand hopes for a new collaborative management-labour culture.

One cannot legislate or coerce employees away from their sense of historical justice. The government cannot legislate away the memories and the deep sense of grievance. It has to earn it year in and year out.

That being said, I agree that the public service needs to have a renewed legal framework for its staffing and management practices to allow it to operate more effectively and to better meet the needs of Canadians. However, right off the top we are now going to call it public administration rather than public service. It sounds like an imperious government that claims to know best for everyone, that it will render what it knows as good for us all and administer instead of striving to serve need, serve the taxpayer in whose name we have government departments who serve the public interest, and serve to be accountable. Will citizens now be mere supplicants who will be administered?

The bill would provide for a new Public Service Employment Act, a new Public Service Labour Relations Act and would amend the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and the human resources provisions of the Financial Administration Act.

The minister claims it is a balanced approach. However, it could be seen that under the guise of flexibility, while the employer makes room to adjust, it may also make room to manipulate and run rough over the plight of workers who would then increasingly turn to their union for a confrontational response.

The last situation we want to create is where the most prominent document on a worker's desk is a union contract. It can happen when a power shift occurs and new flexible authority is not implemented wisely. The government as a manager has started in a deep hole and if it ever hopes to get to higher ground, the powers that come through increased flexibility would have to be used carefully to obtain objective outcomes in a manner that makes sense to all those involved.

I hope that through better leadership from government, the increased flexibility in staffing and management of people will have safeguards to sustain a merit based, non-partisan public service. The minister sees the need for more constructive and cooperative labour-management relations to support a healthy, productive workplace. Does the government have any clue as to how to operationalize it?

Certainly, a greater commitment of resources to appropriate kinds of training is a start, especially skills in human relations and business, understanding organizational behaviour, industrial psychology, the science of decision-making, team building and people management. They all need to become part of the regular culture.

Wherever there is a supervisory role, even at lower levels, the incumbent must be given the people management training and be required to meet standards for supervising people. More coherent skill building can help employees pursue professional development to help meet the corporate needs of the public service. Clarified roles and strengthening accountability for institutions and individuals responsible for managing the public service should be an ongoing environment of review. Leaders cannot manage what they do not measure and assess.

A transparent culture of evaluation for both outcome and means must become the natural way of being rather than just an emergency reaction to the Auditor General or creating another crisis management project. There is a sound role for a vibrant, independent public service commission. Instead of trying to go around it, when it does not appear responsive enough, a better approach would be to fix it. Let us give the public service real resources to do its job and make it produce timely results, then receive the true potentials that such an independent role can deliver. Let us fix it instead of diluting and bypassing it.

This bill does appear to sufficiently maintain the role of the Public Service Commission as an independent appointment agency, accountable to Parliament for protecting merit, but the meaning of merit is watered down from striving for the best person who is most qualified to any from a group who may meet minimum requirements.

The minister claims the new approach to merit would improve a manager's ability to appoint people more quickly, when and where they are needed, while providing safeguards against abuse. My warning is that if the new direction is not done wisely, the broad system malaise that has been talked about so widely by the professional observers of the public service would only deepen and there would be no renewal of the public service culture. Nevertheless, I remain hopeful for the new independent public service staffing tribunal that would review internal staffing complaints and protect employees against abuse of authority.

My message to the minister is to give the tribunal a lot of capacity up front, as it is likely to be swamped in the beginning until things settle down. The start-up window for credibility would be very short and there would be little room for mistakes on this one. Let us make it comprehensive and capable. Let us resource it fully and ensure that it works for the benefit of everyone across the country.

The minister, through the bill, also realizes the need to assist the oversight role of Parliament. The statute outlines the requirement for the Treasury Board to report annually on human resource management issues. If this were to become one more feel good document that is so typical from the government, then the whole exercise would be lost. I would prefer an element of outside government assessment and certification as part of this reporting exercise, including computer access to the raw data. If the government wants to become transparent, here is its real chance.

The minister hopes the bill, to which we refer as the PSMA, would set the stage for a more constructive dialogue between managers and bargaining agents representing more than 85% of the public service workforce. They hope to improve collective bargaining through enhanced mediation and provide for more flexible methods to resolve conflict. This is very nice, but they certainly do not need to wait for a new act to behave more wisely, for it was always within the grasp of government to behave.

The government will try to fix things with new public interest commissions which will replace existing conciliation boards, supposedly to help parties resolve disputes and recommend settlements in consideration of the public interest. However, the government gets the union behaviour it deserves based upon years of previous conduct. While management must have both the legal power and the skill to manage, we have not yet seen an attitude from the Liberal political masters that any of the system tinkering in this bill would make much difference.

The government would also create a new Canada school of public service by amalgamating Training and Development Canada and the Canadian Centre for Management Development to provide coordinated and innovative learning for employees and managers.

I have optimism for this new arrangement. The government says that it has a strategy to equip the public service to adapt with excellence to the changing needs of Canadians. It makes a lofty claim when it says that through training it is committed to fair and respectful employment practices and effective workplace dialogue.

The government claims that the PSMA is a balanced legislative package resulting from research and consultation conducted by the task force on modernizing human resource management in the public service. We will be hearing from members of the task force at the committee stage process whether enough of their recommendations are in the bill.

Concerning the changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, it is to improve the labour-management relationship in the public service while maintaining the existing basic labour relations framework with a view to contributing to a healthy and more productive public service workplace. I note a change in the name of the act, which employs labour relations instead of staff relations to modernize the vocabulary.

A new preamble in the bill tries to underscore the value of co-operative labour relations within a context where the public interest remains paramount. The government says that it is committed to a fair, credible and efficient resolution of matters arising in respect of the terms and conditions of employment. I hope it can lead by example. Certainly the disrespect it has shown Parliament in the past does not help its credibility when dealing with the workers who administer the people's business across the country. It seems some cabinet ministers and even backbench Liberal MPs think that the public service works for the Liberal Party.

Let us be mindful that the bill before us today must be viable, regardless of which political party forms the government in the years to come. What we are doing today should represent more leadership through partnership rather than control through rules.

The bill would affirm in law both the employers right to manage, to determine its own organizations, the assignment of duties and classification of positions, as well as some employee freedoms related to union activity. I hope the government will have the common sense to negotiate with the unions a more reasonable, practical amount of union activity that will be permitted on employer time and on employer premises.

There also would be a new public service labour relations board. The board's mandate would be broadened to provide adjudication, mediation and compensation research and analysis services. It is hoped that the individuals who are appointed to the board will be of the highest calibre the country can produce and who can inspire confidence from all sides, for their role is so important. The board would also continue to provide facilities and administrative support to the national joint council, which is recognized in the bill.

In respect of compensation analysis and consequent bargaining, it should be clarified that in general, public sector compensation levels should be referenced to and follow the benchmarks of the private sector and not lead them.

Two tier bargaining would allow for service wide bargaining to set the broad parameters for terms and conditions of employment in a bargaining unit, while permitting precise details to be negotiated in departments if the employer, the bargaining agent and the deputy head jointly agree. It is designed to result in terms and conditions more appropriately tailored to the needs of the job. The concept of a single master agreement, completed or complemented by sectoral agreements, is very well established across Canada.

Conciliation boards and conciliation commissioners would be replaced by public interest commissions. Public interest commissions would be non-permanent bodies consisting of one of three persons appointed by the minister responsible to assist the parties to resolve their dispute and make recommendations for settlement. The chairperson of the PSLRB would be able to recommend the appointment of a public interest commission, either at the request of the parties or on his or her own initiative. I would hope that if we ever get to that poor situation that one of these needs to be appointed, it would not be used for the government to negotiate through the media.

The right to strike would not be acquired until 30 days after an essential service agreement had been concluded. No essential service employee would be allowed to participate in a strike and it would be prohibited for any person to impede or prevent employees who provide essential services from entering or leaving their place of work.

Concerning strike votes, the bill would require bargaining agents to hold secret ballot strike votes in order to declare a strike. I think that is very wise.

The bill also would ensure that all bargaining unit employees have the right to vote and to be given a reasonable access to the vote. Strike votes would have to be held within 60 days preceding any strike. A majority of those voting would have to be in favour in order for a strike to be declared.

Concerning the informal conflict management system, each deputy head in the core public administration would be required, in consultation with bargaining agents representing employees in the department or organization, to establish an informal conflict management system and inform the employees in the department or organization of its availability.

Concerning amendments to the Financial Administration Act, the delegation of authority and responsibility to deputy heads, considerable sweeping power is given for their human resource requirements and their allocations. With deputy heads receiving such tremendous authority, it is hoped that ministers will keep them accountable. May we never see another HRDC scandal.

Concerning the Public Service Employment Act, the government claims to modernize staffing in the public service, clarify roles and responsibilities and give new meaning to merit, create new arrangements for staffing recourse and establish a regime for political activities of public service employees.

The preamble to the bill has some nice sounding commitments of appreciation for the public service, which later may be undermined in its implementation. It talks about the importance of a modern, flexible staffing regime based on merit without political interference. It mentions excellence, integrity and reflecting national diversity, whose members are drawn from across the country.

That very ideal is too frequently undermined by the geographic prohibitions against all Canadians having equal opportunity to apply for a competition. Such practice by the government hurts national unity and is a stain on our international reputation as a free and democratic society. I call on the minister to immediately prohibit any such discrimination in hiring, for the free goods, capital and labour is fundamental to a market economy and a functioning democracy.

Responsibilities would be clarified among the Public Service Commission, Treasury Board, the employer, deputy heads and the new public service staffing tribunal. The PSST, as we would call it, would adjudicate complaints against internal appointments and establish regulations regarding complaint procedures. As I have mentioned, it is a very important entity.

We now come to the principle of merit that should apply throughout the public service at all levels. Initial appointments by the Public Service Commission would continue to be based on merit, free from political interference it is said, but with an approach to try and streamline the lengthy staffing process.

The following new definition is likely to be fought over and has already generated some national controversy in the media. An appointment would be based on merit when the Public Service Commission determines that the person meets the essential qualifications for the work to be performed and has regard to any additional qualifications that would be an asset or has regard to the operational requirements or current and future needs of the organization that may be identified.

The new meaning of merit would reflect the new roles and responsibilities of the PSC, the employer and the deputy heads. The employer would determine the needs of the public service, such as skill shortages and incapacities. The deputy heads would determine particular needs within their organizations, such as shift work availability and essential qualifications, as well as complementary qualifications that would be an asset for the job but that are not essential. It would be expected that the PSC would conduct the assessments and make the selection.

My problem is that the new, watered down definition of merit gives no direction to select the best person for the job within a specific competition process. Since that basic goal would no longer be required, no justification or accountability would be required to defend perhaps a sloppy selection process or even insider advantage to a favoured person.

There is nothing that will bring the whole system down faster than the informal social network of news among employees when it becomes known that a significantly less able employee was selected for promotion under the new proposed system, where this so-called winner met the basic qualifications but was clearly not the best person within any given competition. I say to the minister that she will have a disaster on her hands if she fails to fix this most basic definition.

Merit means exactly that, the person with the most merit within any given competition must be hired. That was the definition of the courts.

The parallel is the letting of contracts, which should be a straightforward business activity, but over which the government stumbles time after time.

The issue of contracts for the federal government is fraught with trouble across the country. It is because the government always seems to want to fudge the rules and play favourites and has insufficient standards that cannot be avoided. It is still too easy under present contracting rules to reward its political friends. That is why sealed bidding processes were developed for contracting in the private sector.

The minister knows all the trouble, the unfairness and the manipulation that goes on with contracting and picking a winner in a competition. The same potential for human nature will apply with a watered down definition of merit in the public service.

It is possible to be efficient and effective and still be fair. Alternately, can it be a wise use of human resource potential to not select the best person in a competition rather than just any from a group of unknown alternative criteria?

Since merit would now be just kind of incidental, why would a competition for promotion even be held? That operational hope is not acceptable. We can be efficient and fix the bottle necks without watering down the principle of merit.

Let us go to clause 33 which permits a secret or unadvertised appointment process. That is also unacceptable. It is not too onerous to post a competition on a computer database that is searchable on the net. Timely advertising of vacancies and promotional opportunities is an inherent part of the proper working of the merit principle. They are tied together.

Clause 34 includes the discredited language where it states:

--the commission may determine an area of selection by establishing geographic, organizational or occupational criteria....

This present definition in law cannot stand as it is so fundamental to all of what it means to have an independent and professional public service. It goes to the heart of why we have a Public Service Commission and what it was created for in the first place. Geographic discrimination is intolerable, and the public expects no less.

No system of appointment or promotion competition is perfect. I am pleased to see recourse for an employee is spelled out in the bill for internal appointment processes. The bill would allow informal discussion to occur between hiring managers and candidates throughout a staffing process to address concerns and correct errors with a view to reducing the need for formal recourse. Where formal recourse is necessary there would be a new, independent tribunal, called the public service staffing tribunal, to replace the current PSC appeal boards.

Employees who are in a competition would be able to make a complaint to the PSST for adjudication based on some grounds. These grounds would include abuse of authority, such as personal favouritism, or denial of the right to be assessed in the official language of one's choice.

The PSST would be able to interpret and apply the Canadian Human Rights Act if a discrimination issue were to arise, and if appropriate, give monetary relief in accordance with the act for pain and suffering and/or special compensation where the behaviour was wilful or reckless.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission would have the right to be notified if issues of discrimination were raised before the PSST and would have standing to make submissions to the PSST. This is designed to promote better decision making by the tribunal in the area of discrimination and employment and to streamline recourse.

However the provisions of the bill would not prevent an employee from making a complaint to CHRC.

The most practical and important part is missing from the legislation. What I do not see is that the PSST should have the clear power to negate a selection and require the process to be done over again with the opportunity for additional applicants to join in. That is the most appropriate, effective, corrective measure to ensure managers are fair, or, if they do not behave, they would have to do the same process over again next time and select the best person. The timelines could be quite fast and need not be seen as a bottleneck. This issue is so basic that it must be fixed.

It seems most reasonable that employees of separate agencies would automatically be able to participate in selection processes open to employees in the core public administration. Agency positions likely were formerly within the public service in any event, such as the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Separate agencies would also be able to request that the PSC approve its staffing regime so that its employees could be deployed into the core public administration.

In the act the Public Service Commission would be required to consult with bargaining agents on key issues, principles governing layoffs, priorities for appointments, qualification standards, the definitions of promotion, probation deployment and appointment to level. Staffing would continue to be outside the scope of collective bargaining.

The PSC would have the authority to investigate whether an appointment was politically motivated or whether fraud occurred in an appointment process and could take corrective action, including revocation, if it was determined that an appointment was tainted by political influence or by fraud.

Now let us talk about term employees. They would be automatically converted to indeterminate, or what I would call permanent status, at the end of the cumulative period of appointment specified by the employer in circumstances determined by the employer. Currently I think that time is three years and it should be reduced to two years, calculated in actual hours of a normal working year.

The use of casual workers should be a concern to all of us. The allowable period of casual employment would be limited to a maximum of 90 days in any calendar year under the act. The government should review where it is using this practice with an effort to severely limit its use unless absolutely vital.

Citizens working in public service should not necessarily lose their political rights. On this matter, I do not think the government has the right balance in the legislation. The new act does try to establish a regime for political activities which balances the rights of employees to engage in the political process with the principle of political impartiality in the public service.

The scope of prohibited political activities is established in the act and through regulations of the governor in council are made on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. In the case of deputy heads, at that high level the act would limit their political activities to just voting, which is appropriate. However, the requirement to obtain leave from the PSC to be a candidate in a federal, provincial or territorial election would be retained and a requirement would be added to obtain permission from the PSC to be a candidate in regional and municipal elections. The same regime would apply in relation to seeking to be nominated as a candidate. These are unreasonable restrictions.

There is also no definition in the bill that requesting leave should not be unreasonably withheld. A decision to grant or not to grant should also be appealable to somebody.

The real problem arises in the long process of seeking a nomination. In my personal example, I was a permanent provincial public employee. I was able to seek a federal nomination without my employer's knowledge or permission as my volunteer time, as long as it was legal, was none of the employer's business. I won my nomination but I had to wait about a year before the writ was dropped and the campaign started. No one, except federal government insiders, knew when the election campaign would start. I was able to invoke the section of the labour agreement that granted unpaid leave for up to five years when I requested it, without having to obtain the employer's consent. Related to my ability to perform my public service job, I was able to amicably invoke the start date of my unpaid leave. This was in 1993 and it looks like the federal government has still not caught up to enlightened British Columbia on that matter.

Work performance is the business of the employer. A conflict of interest concerning confidential government information is the business of the employer. However beyond that it is not the employer's business whether people are politically active, whether they belong to a party, if they do volunteer political work in their leisure time and if they obtain a nomination for an election for some unknown time in the future.

The government attitude, as reflected in the bill, is still in the dark ages concerning basic political rights and the encouragement of the brightest and best in the federal public service to come forward and appropriately become politically active. The sections as they are written are unrealistically paternalistic and controlling and are actually quite insulting. They would never withstand a charter argument if one was created.

Therefore I look forward to the minister assigning some resources to review this section of the bill as, on the face of it, it is far too restrictive and flies in the face of our democratic ideals in this country.

[Public Service Modernization Act, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and acknowledge, on behalf of the Canadian Alliance and the taxpayer, that the minister has made a positive statement of intent in the tabling of the public service modernization act.

We must ensure that we truly have a modern, flexible human resource management. In our party we have always valued the dedicated work of government employees, who have often, over the years, had to work under poor political leadership and uncertainty that their jobs would be eliminated in another reorganization of a ministry.

All members in the House are aware of past confrontational styles of union-management relations and even a controlling work culture. It is not a healthy sign when many employees have their union contract book as the most prominent document on their desks.

I am mindful of the debate in the House last evening where my caucus colleagues were pleading with the government, on behalf of public servants, for basic whistleblower protection for average employees. Many examples were given in the debate where dedicated employees have done their duties to observe and report significant problems and even wrongdoing to then later find out that it was particularly embarrassing to the government. It was the dutiful worker who was disciplined or dismissed rather than the public interest being served.

We are mindful of the evaluation of the Auditor General in 2001. The quote is:

The legislative and management framework for public service recruitment requires radical change to ensure that new systems and practices will be more responsive to both the operational requirements of departments and the long term needs of the public service.

I am pleased to hear that the minister is trying to improve both the culture of government service and the local climate of the workplace for our loyal public employees. This is being done for both productivity and for service to the country.

I am pleased to hear of the reaffirmation of ongoing quality training. Moreover, it is hoped that the new measures to strengthen accountability at all levels, including better reporting to Parliament, will indeed be delivered.

Being a government employee should be seen as an honourable and rewarding career choice. Canada should be able to attract its brightest and best into public service. We will be able to do this if the context is thoroughly professional, the standards are high and the personal rewards of compensation and workplace meaning are significant.

It is hoped that as we examine the details and the implications of this bill that we can eventually can get to the point that we have a collaborative union-management culture where the public interest of Canada comes first and that it will be freely given rather than coerced. We need a climate of respect and, above all, a consciousness of the taxpayer for all government activity in whose name we all perform.

I am pleased to hear that the minister is open to some adjustments to the bill as the need may emerge during the legislative process at the committee stage. In response, our party will not be confrontational for partisan considerations. As a true government in waiting, the last thing we would contemplate from our side is to play politics with the lives of public service employees. However there are concerns about continued geographic discrimination and hiring, and the unwise use of affirmative action policies.

Canada is a great country. Moreover, working in the Canadian federal public service is quite good in comparison to the situation for employees of governments around the world. Nevertheless, things could be much better. There is no reason why Canada cannot become the best by receiving the best from its very best. It is all under our own control within our own borders. It is up to us.

Canada is great, not because we have had great leaders or great governments but because of average Canadians who have built this society and have sacrificed when called upon to make our country a better place to live. Public employees have worked to secure the nation. They strive to build a stable foundation despite unstable times.

The minister now implies that there will be a positive break with the past. We in the official opposition will perform our constructive part to ensure that positive values are reflected in the legislation.

We look forward to being completely engaged in this honourable project that the President of the Treasury Board has brought to the House this day.

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the minister would not leave the chamber but consent to a normal 10 minute question and answer period?