House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 43% of the vote.
Employment Insurance November 18th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, as I just said, this legislation has been put in place by this government. It gives employees options to report their concerns. It imposes consequences for individuals who fail to play by the rules. In fact the commissioner himself stated that whistleblowers “are adequately protected” by our legislation. We stand by that assessment and we will continue to protect those people.
Employment Insurance November 18th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, we want employees to feel confident when they share their concerns about wrongdoing within the public service. We introduced rules after 13 years of scandals and mismanagement under the Liberals. That is why we passed this legislation.
We will continue to ensure this is law is applied and it should be applied fairly.
Labour November 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very important question. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that currently, the absenteeism rate in the federal public service is 2.5 times private sector norms? This means that employees are home sick longer and are not getting the care they need. We want to have a system in place of more accountability and more responsibility, ensuring that those who are genuinely sick get the care they need and get back to work healthier.
This is good for the public service and it is good for the taxpayer to have that greater accountability. That is what I will be pursuing next year, when we get down to bargaining.
Government Advertising November 5th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to have some new friends on the NDP benches, I notice.
I would remind the hon. member that it is the responsibility, it is a duty, of the government to communicate on important programs and services and how they are available to Canadians. Obviously, advertising is a key component of how we can do that. We treat all taxpayer money with the utmost respect. We require government business to be done at the lowest possible cost.
I am surprised the hon. member did not key in on another important fact that was found in those documents as well: the budget deficit is $6.9 billion lower than projected. Well done, Minister of Finance.
Performance Reports, 2012-13 November 5th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table documents in both official languages.
On behalf of the 92 departments and agencies, I table the performance reports for 2012-13, and I invite hon. members to access the performance reports at tbs-sct.gc.ca. Of course we have them available on members' sticks, so if they do not want the sticks, they can go online as well.
Public Accounts of Canada October 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise when we are dealing with the proboscis of a pachyderm. That is really when we get into some issues, but we are not on those issues today.
I have the honour to table today, in both official languages, the Public Accounts of Canada
The Government of Canada is committed to strong financial management and reporting to ensure accountability and transparency. For the fifteenth consecutive year, the Auditor General of Canada has provided an unqualified opinion on the Government of Canada's financial statements, and the Government of Canada can be justifiably proud of this record. Certainly we are, on the Conservative side of the House.
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
I can explain why this is included in Bill C-4. It is simple. Budget 2013 indicates the importance of fiscal balance and relations with a more modern public service. We made mention of this in budget 2013 and in the Speech from the Throne two weeks ago.
This is government policy. It is absolutely connected to the fiscal probity and the fiscal future of the federal government on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, so it is no surprise that it should be part of this bill.
In answer to the hon. member's second question, I would only say it is important to designate which services are essential before the negotiations take place. This is what Canadians expect of a government that is managing the public service and the fiscal finances of the country.
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, this topic was just discussed by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo in her address on this issue about 40 minutes ago.
The member put an interesting fact before this House: the present situation, 80% of the cases that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is talking about that were appealed because of dangerous circumstances, even including the appeals, were found not to be the case.
Clearly this provision, if I can say it euphemistically, has been overused. I think it does deserve tightening. It the Minister of Labour's responsibility, and she is an excellent person to ask about this issue. I certainly support the Minister of Labour and her changes to the Canada Labour Code.
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that a system in which the employer, in this case the Government of Canada, has to bargain on which employee is essential and which employee is not essential is not the right way to approach the issue. These issues should not be bargained. They should ultimately be the responsibility of the employer to designate.
That said, as I said in my remarks in this chamber, there should be a process of dialogue with the labour unions to get their input, their feedback, on what the government's intentions are.
Ultimately it is the responsibility and the duty of government to protect the public. That is the government's job. If it does not have the ability to appropriately designate the individuals who carry on essential services or if that designation is subject to bargaining and negotiating, that is not in the public interest, and that is what we object to.
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 October 29th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-4. This bill is very important for creating the necessary balance between the interests of the public, which the Government of Canada wants to protect, and the interests of public service unions.
I will talk a little bit about the sections relating to my portfolio. Certainly there are some changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, as my colleagues across the way and the union heads have cottoned on to. I think it is important to explain the context and why we believe that they are fair and reasonable.
If citizens were not informed and are now informed, these things are, in fact, not in the legislation now. Citizens I have talked to are quite surprised that these bits of the legislation we are changing are not, in fact, the law as we see it today. That is one of the things I think is the common sense of the people when it comes to these matters.
A lot has been made of changes to the designation of essential services. Let me just say this. Again, most citizens, if one had told them that the designation of essential services was a matter to be bargained with the bargaining agent, with the union, so that the government, as the employer and the protector of the public interest, had to bargain for the designation of essential public servants, would have been shocked. They would have been totally surprised by that. However, that is, in fact, the law as it now sits. There has to be a bargaining process the Government of Canada has to undergo to designate various individuals as essential.
Our position is very clear. It is not for negotiation to defend the public interest when it comes to health and safety and security issues. That is not in the public interest. This bill represents a very common-sense change that most Canadians would agree with.
How does it work? This has come up, and some have suggested that the details are not in the bill. The details are in the bill. It is very clear, under both the bill and the practice that is considered good faith bargaining, that the designation of public servants as essential has to occur before negotiations with the public sector union on a collective agreement have started.
Let me be clear. I cannot wake up one day after a bad bargaining session with the bargaining agent and say, “That is it; they are all going to be essential”. We cannot do that. It would be absurd. The designation has to occur before the bargaining takes place. Indeed, good practice is to sit down with the union heads and say that here is what we are proposing as essential employees, and what do they think? We would get their feedback and then proceed, in the public interest, with those designations.
Let me repeat the point that safety and security are not negotiable. The Conservative government, through this bill, intends to protect the safety and security of the public.
Let us talk about two-tier arbitration. This is another facet of the changes we are making to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, except in the case of essential services, where there is mandatory arbitration.
That is another point, by the way. To hear it from the unions, this designation of essential services means the end of bargaining as we know it and that they have been stripped of all of their bargaining rights. No. Part of bargaining, in some cases, is arbitration. Indeed, this is preserved under the legislation. I wanted to make that point clear and put it on the record, as well.
Two-tier arbitration is to make sure that the bargaining agent and the employer both have a say as to whether arbitration is going to be used, except in the case of essential services, when it would be used. That is an important change as well.
Let us look at arbitration factors. This is, again, common sense that most Canadians would agree with. The arbitrators have to look at recruitment and retention issues.
We cannot have an arbitrator who is not aware that in a particular bargaining unit there are 20 applications for every position, or maybe there are no applications because it is that tough a job. I think that is relevant information for the arbitrator and goes to the impact on the treasury of the demands of a particular union.
The arbitrator should also have regard to the economy. What is the state of the economy? This is critically important, because the amount of revenue that can be raised affects the bottom line of the government. The arbitrator should have regard to the economic policies of the government, because those are relevant. If we are in a period of tightening, that should be a relevant piece of information for the arbitrator.
Again, it is common sense. If most Canadians were asked and given these choices, they would say they were surprised that this was not the case right now.
Cost sharing on grievances is again common sense. If there is going to be a grievance process, those costs should be shared by both the union and the employer. The employer should not pay 100% of the cost. Quite apart from everything else, that arrangement only encourages those with spurious claims to grieve. Therefore, let us have some responsibility and some common sense by sharing the cost of the grievance procedure.
There was as well a compensation research bureau under the Public Service Labour Relations Board. Quite frankly, it was not very effective. My point of view, and the point of the view of the government, is that if there is research to be done on pay scales or positions on the impact of a bargaining agent's position or the government's position in a particular collective bargaining session, that should be borne by either the government or by the union, whichever of the two is making the point. It should not be borne by separate research that may or may not be accepted by the bargaining agents or by the government in any case. That is again common sense.
We are also proposing to eliminate double jeopardy for grievances. Currently we have a situation in which the grievor can forum shop: if she or he does not like one forum, the grievor can go to the next forum, and so on. Our commonsensical position is to pick a forum, have the adjudication at that forum—they do not lose any rights, because there is an adjudicative process—and at the end of the day, that decision has to be accepted by the government and by the union at the same time. I think that eliminates years and years of forum shopping whereby people who do not like a decision go to the next place. It does not help the employee and does not help the system generally.
Finally, I want to draw members' attention to another provision. This one would allow the bargainer, in this case the Government of Canada, to start the process of negotiation with the bargaining agent 12 months before the expiration of a contract.
Again, this is common sense. We have a lot of cases right now in which there is a lot of back pay that has to be added on, and the employees have a lot of uncertainty for a number of years because they are waiting for the process of bargaining to begin. Let us start the bargaining earlier. Let us get the collective agreements done earlier. That means less back pay, but it also means, on a go-forward basis, more certainty for the employee as to what her or his collective agreement is.
These are commonsensical changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. It follows on some of the other positions we have taken over the last few months. I know this is somewhat of a controversial concept, but how about explaining to employees what their job is, how their success is going to be measured, and then following up with that employee to see whether she or he is meeting those goals.
Again, it is common sense, which is not performed systematically across the whole public service. We are going to do it.
We are also going to look at absenteeism to make sure that we have the right policies in that area.
I will leave it at that. Bill C-4 is a well-intentioned bill that will do the job for Canadians.