Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 10 - Evidence - Morning sitting
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 6, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-29, to establish the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence, met this day at 9:05 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Ron Ghitter (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, just before we begin our consideration this morning of Bill C-29, which is to establish the Parks Canada Agency, I wanted to say that, having read the newspapers this morning, I was given the impression that the Senate was not doing anything today. Yet, when I look on our schedule, I see there are quite a number of committee meetings taking place today.
This morning we have witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage and I extend our welcome to them, and I would ask Mr. Lee, the Assistant Deputy Minister, to proceed, please.
Mr. Tom Lee, Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada: Honourable senators, it is our pleasure to join you here this morning and my pleasure to make a few opening remarks. I will not take very much time; however, I will provide you with the flavour of the bill.
Let us consider Parks Canada. Most of you have had some contact with this organization of about 5,000 people. It operates in some 170 different locations across Canada, from the very East Coast in Bonavista to the very West Coast, from Ellesmere Island in the very far north, down to Point Pelee in southern Canada. We have 36 operating national parks, 130 national historic sites, and we are actively engaged in a number of marine conservation areas. We serve in the 23 million to 25 million visitors annually, including foreign visitors. Our overall economic impact, occurring primarily in the tourism sector, is in excess of $2 billion annually from the operating sites.
The Parks Canada Agency Bill is an organizational bill. It is designed to give Parks Canada a number of powers to enable it to deliver service to Canadians in a more efficient manner than at present. It is not a mandate bill, and I raise this point because in some of the earlier committee work some witnesses wanted the inclusion of a number of mandate-type items to be considered. The mandate for the parks agency is not specifically derived from the organizational act, or from the agency bill, but from the individual bills that the agency is responsible for managing.
The National Parks Act provides the agency with its mandate for national parks and tells how national parks should be managed. The Historic Sites and Monument Board of Canada Act provides the mandate relative to national historic sites. The Heritage Railway Station Protection Act describes what must be done with regard to heritage railways.
The agency will be responsible for quite a few policies, specifically the delivery of the national archaeology policy, the policy dealing with archaeology on federal public lands, and the federal heritage building policy. The latter is a Treasury Board policy that requires that federally-owned building which are more than 40 years old must be examined for their heritage values and that, wherever possible, those values must be retained. The federal-provincial cooperative work done with regard to Canadian heritage rivers is a policy item for which the agency is also responsible.
The mandate for the agency is derived from those specific bills, and before you is an organizational bill that sets up an organizational structure with specific powers to deliver those mandated items.
The bill seeks to make improvements in a number of areas. The bill puts a legislative organization in place. Part of the desire behind that is to achieve organizational stability for a program that has had a history of great mobility. This program has been handled by a number of different departments, and frequent and unexpected changes in organizational structure have, over time, proved disruptive to the delivery of the program. This a legislative departmental corporation, and one of the purposes of the bill is to gain that stability.
The bill also attempts to achieve greater simplicity in the structure and the order in which the agency carries out its business. Fundamentally, what will happen under the bill is that we will have an organization that reports directly to the minister, as opposed to through a layered bureaucracy. Internally, we will be able to organize ourselves so as to bring as much operational decision-making ability to the field level as possible.
I should stress for the committee's information that the policy dimensions do not change. The fundamental policy direction rests with the minister, as does overall power of direction over any operational aspect. However, there is, within the structure that we provided, an internal "delayering."
The third major item in the bill relates to the financial authorities, and I will highlight the major elements. One element is what I describe as a two-year rolling budget with an ability to carry over, if necessary, funds from one year to the next for operating purposes. The second element is retention of revenue, and I should say that that the agency forecast funding relative to revenue is about 25 per cent of its budget, which is about where it is now. Over the long term, it would be expected that approximately 75 per cent of the funds required for the agency would be voted by Parliament. That is the rough financial structure.
The third major element under the issue of financial authorities concerns the non-lapsing new parts and sites account. That is an account from which voted items -- funds for new parks and sites -- are deposited and any income from sale of assets is deposited for reinvestment back into the parks system. That is a new element.
After financial authorities, the fourth element of the bill concerns the human resource authorities. I know the committee will want some detail on this but, in simple form, the human resource authorities contained in the bill provide that the agency will become an independent employer and will take over a number of functions, including job classification, collective agreements, hiring and promotion policies, and so on.
The final element of the bill deals with the ability to gain administrative authorities of various types. Some examples would be to simplify our process in the acquisition of lands, or the sale of assets, and a number of other items relating to purchasing.
The bill is different from some of the other agency bills that have been before the Senate before. This is not a commercial bill, in the sense that the primary purpose behind this bill is not to deal, for example, with the retention of revenue. It is, in fact, a bill, as I said before, that retains the mandated items of Parks Canada through the pieces of legislation which it administers. It is not intended as a method of privatization or commercialization of the parks.
Mr. Chairman, that ends my opening remarks. I hope that gives you an overview of the bill.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Kenny: Welcome back, Mr. Lee. We have appreciated your testimony before this committee in the past and we are glad to see you and your colleagues.
My first question to you is: How will the care of our parks be improved by the creation of this agency?
Mr. Lee: I wish to tell you about some of the things that the individual park managers would have access to which they did not have access to in the past. The first one, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, concerns the way that the organization is structured and the way that it carries out its day-to-day business. In a normal departmental structure, there is a hierarchical-type of arrangement whereby, in order to get decisions, the individual field unit superintendent would have to go through a set of regional structures at headquarters, followed by a set of departmental structures, followed by access to the minister, if a decision was required at that level. Under the structure that is being put in place through the agency, the fundamental procedure for a field unit superintendent to obtain a decision is to come directly to the head of the organization, namely, the chief executive officer. The organization does not have the old regional structures that we used to have. We have two agency offices -- one in Calgary and one in Halifax -- but they are 10-person offices. They are there to ensure that we are properly coordinated with other departments. They are not there to get in the way of a field superintendent who needs a decision from myself or the minister. With their ability to get answers quickly and to deliver to the public whatever response is required, we have dramatically moved a away from a hierarchical situation.
The second major element involves the financial authority under the legislation. With the ability to operate on a two-year budget system comes, first, the ability for an individual manager to plan ahead and to know what will happen. This time period -- that is, one year in advance -- becomes an extremely important item for each of the managers. The capacity to roll over from one year to the other enables us to make decisions on a basis other than it is March 27 and if the next million dollars is not spent in the next three days, it will not be seen again. We retain the ability to take that money and have it available for investment over the next time period.
The revenue-retention ability has dramatically changed the approach that individual field unit superintendents use to establish their budget. Put quite simply, there is much more attention to cost and cost controls and much more attention to ensure that the revenue levels established in any individual park are compatible with the visitors being served. An accountability system is built in there.
Also, I wish to speak about the human resource regime and, in particular, the hiring practices and grievance procedures. With the ability to exercise its own hiring, Parks Canada will not have to go through a Public Service Commission system, which is quite prolonged. That is unnecessary because we are a stable organization by nature. The people we are hiring today are fundamentally the same type of people we hired 5 years or 10 years ago. In our case, there is no need to have every one of those positions go through a hierarchical review process as they come up for hiring.
Finally, with regard to human resources, a number of the current grievance procedures will be replaced by these procedures, but not in a negative way. We are working with the unions to develop a grievance process that is quick and efficient, that does not leave people with a problem hanging out there for two to three years sometimes before getting a decision, and that will be totally fair to both the employer and the employee.
Those are the views that I would express from the people that are carrying out the individual operations.
Senator Kenny: That is pretty much what you said in your opening statement, Mr. Lee. The reorganization that you are describing is something that could have been accomplished without having it go to an agency. Concerning the financial control aspects -- that is, the two-year horizon and the opportunity to dispose of assets -- my understanding was that some steps had been taken regarding the latter item. That is to say, arrangements had been made with Treasury Board some years ago so that Parks Canada could keep some portion of the assets or the proceeds from assets that it sold. Why could you not come up with a reorganization and some sort of system that went beyond the current one-year period and still have remained an entity inside the government?
Mr. Lee: It raises the issue of whether or not the government as a whole is prepared to see these types of authority granted to the entire Public Service. I am not the one to speak directly to that.
Senator Kenny: Am I correct when I suggest that Parks Canada was able to retain some of its revenues and was able to retain some of the proceeds from asset sales in the past?
Mr. Lee: As part of moving toward the agency, we received some interim steps; we are retaining the revenue, for example, from visitor fees. Some of the leasehold revenues have been put into things such as revolving accounts, in the case of the town sites. Those measures were granted but they are not fixed. Others do not yet exist. In a few instances, we have arranged with Public Works for some revenue retention on the sale of assets, but basically we do not have that authority at this point in time.
The other major item is revenue from the sale of intellectual properties. This is where you get into things such as books and publications, and so on, in which you need to have the revenues in order to republish so that the material is available to the public. Those are currently paid out of appropriations.
The Chairman: I should like to develop the points that you have already raised, Senator Kenny, because I have some views on this.
Senator Kenny: I have one more question on this and then I have some questions on personnel matters.
The Chairman: Perhaps we can stay on this one point about the need for this legislation because I have many questions in my own mind about that. Please continue.
Senator Kenny: The real essence of my question was to ask you to put on a user's hat for a moment. How will the parks be better for a family going to visit them next summer if this legislation is passed?
Mr. Lee: They will be better because, through the organization that we are putting in place, we will be able to deliver the services at less cost than we have in the past. We must do that because that money is fundamentally gone now as part of program reduction. Basically, you have an organization that had a reduction of about $100 million in its budget but was asked to continue service to Canadians. We believe that we will be able to do so. This is where I hope that Canadians will see no change. The objective is not to see service levels decrease but to keep all parks and sites open, maintain the season, maintain the hours of operation, and so on.
Senator Kenny: Are you telling this committee that, if we do not pass this proposed legislation, you will curtail park opening hours, curtail services and even shut down operations?
Mr. Lee: I would not go that far. That is a decision the government must take.
What I have been asked to do is put in place an organization that can deliver those services at considerably less cost. The agency and the structure is one way of doing that.
Senator Taylor: On the question of reduced costs, I find it difficult to buy the idea that you are so inefficient now that the costs make it difficult to run the parks within your budget unless, under the new organization, you are contemplating contracting out and getting out of your pension responsibilities to regular staff. Are you thinking of cutting staff and contracting out in order to reduce costs?
Mr. Lee: No. We explored contracting out two years ago. We listed a number of maintenance-type activities to see if our staff were interested in contracting to provide those services and we assessed whether savings could be achieved by doing that. We did not find the savings we might have expected. In fact, we contracted out very few services which amounted to something in the order of $200,000 of our total budget.
Senator Taylor: If you are not contracting out and not laying off people, where are the so-called "savings" coming from?
Mr. Lee: I will not use the phrase "lay-off people," but in the process we have undergone in the last four years -- and we are completing that process -- we have reduced our staffing levels by up to 800 people.
Senator Taylor: I have gone through this with the Alberta government and Alberta's parks. The result was a shambles. The public was short-changed. Because they did not have the staff to administer them, the government closed down many small parks and picnic areas that families would visit. I am most suspicious of cut-backs.
Your argument is that you were overstaffed, and doing this makes it easier to bring your staff in line and remain as part of the structure. Is that it? If you had stayed in the old structure, could you not have reduced staff as easily as you can now?
Mr. Lee: No. In the old structure, there was built-in overhead at the department level and in the regional structures. Those cost money.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lee, if you were to take your reasoning to a logical conclusion, the only way to deal with the parks system would be to privatize it. We saw that happen in Alberta. To build on Senator Taylor's point, they took the same approach. Many regions were privatized. Is this really the first step towards the privatization of our parks? I know the minister says that it is not, but what you are saying it leads me to that inevitable conclusion.
Mr. Lee: It is not the first step; it is not any step towards privatization. There is no intention to privatize the parks. The parks of Canada are not for sale to anyone.
Nothing in this bill changes the fundamental mandate under the National Parks Act. Those of you familiar with that act will know that it is a very powerful statute with regard to the protection of the public interest and maintenance of public stewardship.
If you have followed the major items with regard to national parks in the media over the last two to three years, you will know that we have been taking action to prevent what some people see as a trend towards commercialization.
The specific aspects associated with the Bow Valley study in Banff National Park, for example, are exactly of that nature. There is no track record in the last three to four years, as we move through this, of privatization. We contracted out about $200,000 worth of services in very small contracts. We are talking about $20,000 contracts. The overall policies with regard to the maintenance of ecological conditions in the park have moved positively ahead in the view of those concerned with that item.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Lee, I see nothing in this bill that requires the agency to maintain existing standards.
I am from Newfoundland, and the most beautiful park in this country is Gros Morne, and I am very pleased with the way Parks Canada has maintained it. I go back every year and I see where they have advanced the beauty of the park. They put in little bridges to maintain the environment, to protect it, and to make the park more beautiful as it pertains to the surroundings in that area.
What assurance do we have that this agency will not sacrifice environmental concerns in the interests of cost savings?
Mr. Lee: I would support the senator's comments with regard to Gros Morne National Park. This is not just a Canadian park; it is a world park. It is an absolutely sensational national park. It is really out of this world.
As to the protection of the quality of the park, the agency obviously carries that responsibility, as does Parks Canada. However, as I indicated before, the requirement for protection of the parks is contained in the National Parks Act. The mandate of the organization with respect to national parks has not changed.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Lee, to put this into a broad context: Canadians identify with their parks. That is part of their unique identity. Yet, everywhere we see unbelievable pressures to limit conservation and push for development in many areas. In my own province, Manitoba, the provincial parks are open to mining and logging, even the most remote, wild parks.
Obviously you would not do this if it were not for the budget constraint. Here is an agency that must depend on raising revenues in order to maintain services.
I do not see any specific protection against, for example "Disney-fication" or the building of theme parks in order to raise revenue, or limiting access to environmentally sensitive areas. There are only so many steps one can take.
What is the specific protection which would justify your rationale for making this an agency, rather than maintaining the symbolic umbrella of the Government of Canada to the commitment to maintain what are increasingly rare commodities in the world, which are naturally preserved areas. Where is the specific part of the proposed legislation which specifies that certain measures will prevent this?
Mr. Lee: The requirement for the protection of the national parks is contained in the National Parks Act. I wish to go over the other elements of the agency bill that do apply.
On the commercial side, the primary growth elements in national parks have been associated primarily with the town sites and the community aspects. In June of this year the minister announced steps to bring into place a system to control and manage that growth. That would be realized through amendments to the National Parks Act, which would state the maximum amount of commercial development that would be permitted in town sites of national parks or communities. You will see that protective element appropriately in amendments to the National Parks Act, not in the agency bill. That was announced in June.
The other major element of commercial operations in parks is associated primarily with the mountain parks, and deals with commercial accommodation development.
In June, the minister announced, under the National Parks Act, per se, that a panel would be appointed to review the nature and direction of that development and to recommend appropriate guidelines for the outlying commercial areas.
In excess of 95 per cent of the commercial activity in the parks is governed under the two elements that the minister announced would be subject to corrective action last June.
Elements of the bill before you do increase accountability in a number of areas. First, a summary of the corporate report will be tabled before Parliament, and for the first time Parliament will have a corporate report that relates specifically to Parks Canada. The current reporting relationship is within a large departmental structure and in which Parks Canada gets a few pages, but it does not provide as full an accounting system as you will get in the future.
Second, the agency will be subject to and is accountable to an annual review by the Auditor General. That is not currently the case.
Third, a biannual report will be laid in Parliament that will report on the state of Canada's heritage. There is currently a requirement under the National Parks Act to table such a report, but that does not necessarily encompass the full range of responsibilities including historic sites for which we are responsible.
A report will be tabled every two years in Parliament that will discuss the state of both national parks and historic sites. An additional accountability measure built into this bill is that there is a new requirement that the management plans for national historic sites be tabled in Parliament. Currently, that is only a requirement for national parks.
The fundamental intention behind the tabling of these reports is to give parliamentarians and Canadians a clear indication of the direction being planned for every park and site.
In terms of a new accountability mechanism, there is a built-in requirement for the agency to hold a biennial public forum at which Canadians can speak and to which specific interest groups can be invited. The program is open for public review in a round table and forum type of arrangement. Further, the proposed legislation requires that any recommendations coming out of that forum be responded to by the minister within a specific time period.
There important new accountability mechanisms are built into the proposed legislation in order to ensure greater public accountability.
Senator Spivak: Where can member of the public register their opposition, in a way which would be timely?
Second, does the minister have the power to interfere in the administrative process when it pertains to a particular park rather than in a yearly kind of accountability?
Mr. Lee: With regard to specific parks, the mechanism which allows for public input before a decision is made is through the management plans. That is where we are different from the provincial organizations. There is a requirement that management plans be put in place, that they be updated every five years, and that that be carried out in an open and consultative manner. Those plans also must be tabled in Parliament.
There is no opportunity for people in the organization to make fundamental changes in the direction of those national parks without consultation and without public exposure and accountability.
The Chairman: I will follow up on the same point, Mr. Lee. When I look at the proposed legislation, you have set out a number of areas that allow for positive advancements in the work of Parks Canada. The areas of accountability are very important areas. I appreciate your difficulty on the area of mobility. It may provide some stability to the department.
It seems that all of these matters could be corrected setting up an agency. Why do we need this agency? I have gone through your five points, and I have gone through your accountability arguments. In a sense, it is a way of getting government off the hook. I have seen governments that surround themselves with buffer agencies that make the minister one step removed from the urgency of the issue.
The minister here has ultimate authority, as the minister should when dealing with our national heritage. I do not argue with that. This is not an autonomous agency; it is an agency of implementation more than anything else. However, this agency will keep the minister one further step removed from the public. I think it is useful to make the minister responsible for something directly in this regard.
This really is a fiscal bill. Under this bill, when user fees start going up, the agency will be blamed, and not the minister. This is not a consumer friendly piece of legislation, because it removes responsibility or makes it more indirect. As a result, I do not understand why you claim that this legislation is necessary, unless it is for fiscal reasons or as a political endeavour to remove the minister from the mainstream.
Would you comment, please?
Mr. Lee: On the issue of ministerial accountability, you did indicate in your remarks that there was a direct reporting relationship to the minister, and that the organization was not sheltered through a board of directors, or by a more distant relationship. I wish to assure the committee that in fact there is no removal or subjugation of the minister's powers and authorities. In fact, I suppose one could argue that the minister is even closer; certainly she is closer administratively in her ability to direct, but she is also closer to the Canadian people in the accountability through accountability mechanisms such as the biennial forum.
I do not believe the committee or Canadians should be at all concerned that there is any intent behind this bill to excuse the national parks and the national historic sites from their accountability to Canadians through the parliamentary and ministerial systems. That is not happening under this bill.
You said that this is a fiscal bill. I would respond to that by saying that we are attempting to provide a service to Canadians at less cost. I believe that it is wise to do so, and that it is important that we try to do so. In the various tools that are provided for in the bill, the agency does have mechanisms that will enable us to deliver services at less cost. There is no motive behind the bill for setting up a revenue-dependent organization, however, and that is why this is not a fiscal bill. At this time, we believe that the revenues, with some exceptions, will have some modest growth.
With the advance authorities that we have been provided, the proposed agency will be roughly 25 per cent income based and 75 per cent appropriation based. In our view of the financial future of this organization, we do not see any mechanisms for substantive shifts in that revenue appropriation relationship in the near future.
The Chairman: If the government determined to cut the budget again, so that it would drop substantially, then that 25 per cent would need to increase. That is, your revenues would need to increase in order to maintain services. That is your only avenue?
Mr. Lee: That would be the government's choice, but I believe there are some realistic checks and balances on that. To the extent that revenues are dependent upon service fees -- for example, entry and camping fees -- there are some very substantive check mechanisms against that. Those fees must be subject to public consultation. They go through a consultation process. I could describe that process in detail if the committee so wished.
By tradition, and by the nature of these areas, they must remain accessible to Canadians. We cannot use a pricing mechanism to price people out of their places. Canadians will not permit that, and that is not in any way related to the objective of this bill.
Senator Kenny: How does this agency differ from the NCC legislation?
Mr. Lee: The one very substantive item that is different is that the NCC is further removed from the minister than this agency is. There is a direct reporting relationship between the CEO and the minister, and there is no board of directors. Structurally, in terms of governance, that is a fundamental difference.
Senator Kenny: It seems that every time there is a problem with the NCC the minister offloads it onto Mr. Beaudry and says "we are at arm's length, we cannot deal with it here," and Mr. Beaudry handles it in his usual secretive way.
What will be different here? Are we just creating a larger operation?
Mr. Lee: I will not comment on that, except to say that the minister would not be able to make that type of statement under this bill. The minister would say "the chief executive officer reports to me and I am responsible for both the policy direction and the operational direction of this organization."
Senator Kenny: You are saying to us that this minister and future ministers will not be able to say "this agency operates at arm's length and therefore I cannot deal with them or give them direction"?
Mr. Lee: Absolutely, you are correct.
Senator Buchanan: Frankly, I do not see what this legislation is all about. I have noted that it indicates Canadians will benefit through continued service at parks and sites. That does not mean very much to me. Canadians will benefit through the creation of new parks and sites and enhanced accountability.
Has there been accountability to Canadians over the years? Is there accountability to Canadians now? I thought there was. How will Canadians benefit now in the creation of new parks and the expansion of existing parks and sites? I thought to do so was part of the mandate at the present time, and continued service of parks and sites. That is what bothers me.
In Nova Scotia we have the most beautiful national parks in all of Canada. I should not say that, I should say two of the most beautiful parks, because if I say Cape Breton Highlands National Park then the people down in the western area will be upset because Kejimkujik is also a beautiful park. As well, we have Louisbourg and York Reboubt. I will not name any more.
In our small province, those parks draw many people. Tourists particularly love to go into the Cape Breton Highlands, Fortress Louisbourg, York Redoubt, and Kejimkujik, and attendance is increasing. How will this bill do more for our national parks in Nova Scotia than is being done at present? As I understand the mandate of Parks Canada, it is to continue to provide better service for our tourists, the public and our provinces, and that will not change.
There is one thing I see here, and that is the reduction of the number of people who work in our parks. That is not good. In our parks students rely on those jobs in the summer. Part-time people rely on them, full-time people rely on them. For years we have been attempting to increase the number of tourists who visit. We are attempting to expand the season from just a July-August event to June-September, and then hopefully from May right through to October. People enjoy going to these national parks in the autumn.
Perhaps you could assure me that this bill will not reduce services in national parks, the length of the season, or the number of employees -- particularly summer students. If that is what this bill is about, then I do not see any benefits from it at all. Also, it could be very counter-productive. There are new revenues coming into the province all the time from the expansion of tourism. We had a tremendous season this year. That means new annual revenues for restaurants, for hotels, and for all the provincial and national parks. I would hate to think that a bill like this could in some way reduce the services we offer at our parks, reduce the season, reduce the number of employees and be counter-productive, because the new annual revenues would not be there.
Mr. Lee: I can assure the committee that this bill is not intended either to reduce costs further or to reduce services. The intention of the bill is to help us sustain services.
In the last three or four years, we have had to try to come to grips with how we maintain services at substantially reduced costs. There have been reductions in staff -- as I have indicated, we lost up to 800 individuals -- but those reductions are now in place. This happened last year. Next year, we will have our first full operating season at the new budget levels that have been established for us. The changes in staff, hours or seasons are already in place. What you got this year is what we are trying to sustain. This bill contains some tools that enable us to do it.
Again, I wish to point out that many of the elements of this bill come from our staff, who said to myself and to the people who worked on the bill, "If we could do it this way rather than that way, then we could do it more quickly and more efficiently." We do not need as many people in regional offices as we have had in the past and we can keep the parks and sites operating. That is what this bill is about in that context, but it is not a reduction bill.
Senator Buchanan: Most of my experience over the last 30 years has been with provincial governments. What reaction do you have from provincial governments about this new agency?
Mr. Lee:We have had reactions primarily from the governments of those provinces which have major parks systems similar to us, namely, Ontario and British Columbia. In terms of the nature, style and scope of parks, they contain many of the same elements. They are not nearly as large as Parks Canada, but they are in the same kind of venue as Parks Canada. Those two organizations are also in the process of change. Ontario Parks has made a number of changes somewhat similar to some of the items that we have in this bill, but they did not go quite as far. Ontario did not, for example, go to the separate employer status, but many of the other items in this bill are in place in Ontario. The work that we are doing currently is one of the areas that the province of British Columbia is examining. They currently have an organizational review process in place and the first preliminary report is out. The rest of the provinces may have some interest in certain elements but their organizations are very different from the organization of Parks Canada. With the exception of British Columbia and Ontario, the provinces fundamentally do not have stand-alone park organizations. In many cases, they are involved in the natural resources departments, forestry or lands, and are part of those organizations. At this point, Ontario is the only one that has a stand-alone parks organization; British Columbia is very close.
Senator Taylor: The figure "five years" keeps cropping up in here. Is this an irreversible process or will it be assessed in five years? If it is not working out, will it be easy to convert back to where we are today?
Mr. Lee: The bill itself is permanent. Having said that, there are mechanisms built in that require accountability of various types, whether financial or public policy. If the agency is not working right, the government or individual members can and should promote corrective action.
Senator Taylor: What we do is not irreversible, then. That is to say, we could go back?
Mr. Lee: That is correct. However, it is not a sunset bill.
Senator Kenny: I wish to turn briefly to personnel matters. Mr. Lee, when you see a bill such as this one, which is creating an agency, your first instinct is that you have a neutron bomb here. That is to say, the buildings will be standing but no people will be left in them. Perhaps it is not that dramatic, but one wonders whether there is a hidden agenda here so that, at the end of the day, the employees of Parks Canada will not end up with the same sort of rights, protection, fringe benefits and opportunities that they have now. Mr. Hindle from PIPS will appear before us at 10:30 a.m. Could you or one of your firms review the concerns that you have received from unions in general -- I gather there is more than one involved -- and tell us your responses to their concerns so that we can then be better prepared to deal with Mr. Hindle?
Mr. Lee: I will turn that question over to Ms Bergeron but, first, I wish to tell you that we are close to our unions on the agency issues and have a positive working relationship with them. If you look at PSAC, which represents roughly 90 per cent of our employees, on the web site, you will see that they are supportive of the agency. PIPS has some perspectives that are bigger than this agency, which they will bring to the table. However, within the work that we are doing, we have a fine relationship with PIPS. I believe that Mr. Hindle will verify this.
I will now have Ms Bergeron give you an overview of what is happening in that area. Perhaps she can deal with your individual questions.
Ms Wendy Bergeron, Director, Human Resources National Office, Department of Canadian Heritage: As Mr. Lee mentioned a few moments ago, in the past 10 months we put in place a process within Parks Canada to work closely with our unions, as well as with our employees, in actually designing the new human resources regime for the Parks Canada Agency. Features of that relationship include a series of five joint union-management working groups which include working-level managers and working-level employees who are also union representatives. The five different groups work to create the new staffing framework and processes for the agency, the new classification framework, a new redress system for the agency and the operating principles which will guide the relationships that we will have amongst ourselves as employees of the Parks Canada Agency. These union-management working groups report to a union-management steering committee, which contains national representatives of our bargaining agents, including representatives from PIPS and from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the national component and the transport component, both of which represent employees in Parks Canada.
Senator Kenny: Could you outline for us the concerns you have heard from the unions and what your response is to them?
Ms Bergeron: At the parliamentary committee, PIPS indicated some concern around the exclusion of the agency from the Public Service Employment Act. For those of you who are not familiar with the details of the Public Service human resources system, the Public Service Employment Act currently guides and governs recruitment and staffing within that part of the Public Service for which Treasury Board is the employer. PIPS was concerned that, without operating under the act, appointments in the agency would no longer be made on the basis of merit but might be partisan appointments. They were also concerned with the loss of the Public Service Commission's appeal process, which is the current redress system for employees who feel that a particular staffing action has had some flaws or some irregularities.
In response to the concerns related to the employment act, in collaboration with our unions and employees, we have developed a set of human resource values and operating principles, which are actually referenced in the bill as part of the charter that will govern the operations of the agency.
These agency values and principles include the traditional Public Service values of merit and non-partisanship. Through consultation with staff, we have built a guiding set of values and principles that will guide not just the operation of the staffing system and framework within the agency, but also all of the other foundation pieces, such as the classification system, the recourse system, and replacement to national joint-council directives.
Senator Kenny: On this portion, are your employees and unions satisfied with your response?
Ms Bergeron: Yes, I believe they are. I would invite you to ask them that question directly, but from all reports at the union-management working group levels, as well as through the steering committee, there has been nothing but support for the process of building together that we have put in place.
With regard to employees no longer having access to the Public Service Commission's appeal process, one of the other union-management working groups that I referenced is working to develop a replacement recourse system. One of the features of this recourse system will include access to an independent third party for employees who are not satisfied with certain staffing actions resulting in promotions, as they currently can under the Public Service Commission appeal system. It is hoped that the system we build on the recourse side will be streamlined and result in quicker decisions than are currently possible for agencies such as the Public Service Commission, which deals with a multitude of appeal requests from across the entire Public Service.
PIPS also raised a concern over the fact that employees of separate employers, such as the Parks Canada Agency, no longer have access to the Public Service Staff Relations Board for disputes related to non-disciplinary terminations of employment. An example would be the termination of employment for incompetence. Again, working with the same national union representatives, we are designing a redress system which will also have access to an independent third party for these types of termination cases if employees are not satisfied with the decision management has taken.
We believe that we are designing a system that will allow for faster redress. It is not uncommon in the current system for it to take upwards of two to three years before such a case is heard by the Public Service Staff Relations Board. In the system we are designing with our independent third party, it is our objective that redress be much more streamlined and much quicker.
Senator Kenny: Was there a second area that you wished to address?
Ms Bergeron: Mr. Lee has reminded me that another series of concerns reflected by our union colleagues relates to their belief that classification and staffing within the agency should be an item subject to collective bargaining. I would add that the kind of corporate structure or accountability structure the agency is proposing is still part of the Public Service. It reports directly to a minister, as Mr. Lee has outlined. As a separate employer, the agency will be governed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which does not allow for collective bargaining of classification or staffing matters.
Senator Kenny: Twice you have referred to the fact these are concerns that union representatives raised before committees in the other place. I presume there are ongoing direct discussions between you and the unions. Are there other outstanding areas where your concerns have not been resolved?
Ms Bergeron: I think not. We meet monthly in these national fora with our national union colleagues. That is not to say that there have not been disagreements or bumps along the road over the past 10 months. It is only normal and healthy for that to happen, in my view. However, we have never reached a point of impasse where we have not been able to work out mutually acceptable arrangements with our union colleagues. Keep in mind that we are both interested in what is in the best interests of the employees of Parks Canada.
Senator Kenny: Then you would be surprised if Mr. Hindle came to the microphone afterwards and expressed concerns about what is going on.
Ms Bergeron: I would not be surprised if he expresses the same concerns he did at the parliamentary committee, but I will allow him to speak for himself.
The Chairman: I would like to move on to a different point, Mr. Lee, one that is a little close to where I live and one that has been before this committee before -- that is, the involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process of Parks Canada.
This committee was very much involved in visiting Banff. We did our report on special places. We met with the Banff-Bow Valley group. I have their report and we lauded that report. We felt that the committee had worked together with all the disparate views of the environmentalists, the business community, and the like. They brought together what appeared to be a fine piece of work. The minister, at the time, said the same thing.
When you came out with your Banff National Park management plan, the minister had some very positive things to say about that process. In fact, the minister said in her message at the front of the summary that the Banff National Park management plan is the blueprint for action in the 21st century. Later in the report, under the section dealing with the concept of a place for open management, a number of key actions were set out. I will refer to a few of them. One was to adopt a clear and open process for reviewing development proposals. Another was to invite the public to review proposed changes in park use. It carried on to say that everyone has an interest in the parks and that the public should be involved in the decision-making process. As well, the bringing together of the various stakeholders is a very important process. This committee has spoken favourably towards that approach to resolving what are often very difficult and controversial matters in the operation of the park.
Having gone through the plebiscite in Banff regarding development in the area, which was very strongly supported by the residents of Banff, and then a minister unilaterally having come forward and countermanding that democratic process, is not in keeping with the approach which should be taken involving the public input necessary to arrive at good public policy.
I do not see anything in this legislation which ensures that you will not have the type of interference that we saw from the minister in Banff, which I perceived to be a very negative approach. I do not see anything that ensures that you will provide the basic formula or process that was so successful in that example until the minister stepped in.
I was surprised by the comments made by your department -- and you signed the document -- and by the minister as to the importance of this process, that more attention was paid in this proposed legislation to ensure that the process, as it relates to individual parks, would be legislated to ensure that this would occur. I would like your comments on that because that is a very controversial matter in my province.
Mr. Lee: First, I will comment on the work of the committee. I am aware and appreciate that the committee did have the chance and took the opportunity to look at the Bow Valley work.
Mr. Chairman, your comments with regard to the management plan are also appreciated. That was an extremely difficult item to deal with. There were some 500 recommendations in the Bow Valley report, which were received through a public process. I chaired the forum. I sat down with those people at meetings and said, "This is our reaction but, before we make a decision, do you have a point of view you wish to express?"
As a result, some concerns were expressed, such as those related to the parkway. We had to change our position to arrive at a decision with which both the public and ourselves were comfortable. That is an example of due process.
Having said that, the history of Banff is a difficult history to work with. To make changes required some strong positions to be taken by the minister.
With regard to the community plan, the suggestion that the minister acted unilaterally I would point out that there was a process set up in which both the Secretary of State for Parks and myself were involved. A number of bilateral meetings were set up with the town council as well as various individuals, including residents, and business and environmental groups. We tried to bring those groups together to arrive at a decision for the Banff town site that would strongly reflect both the local and the national interest.
The criticisms we heard had to do with process. Individuals do have different perspectives, but a decision was arrived at and announced in June. I will quote the mayor on this because he was here at the time of the announcement. His comment of the government's decision announced that day, and which is on the record, is that the government's decision is a "win-win" situation.
We were in a win-win situation regarding the Banff community plan, even though one could argue that the process did not always work properly, but that was not through a lack of an attempt at consultation. Those types of difficulties can occur. The decision that was announced was a gutsy and decisive one.
Some items need to be worked through in detail to implement the decision of last June. The government said that it wanted to do a number of things to create public space in the downtown core area and develop more extensive interpretation, education and environmentally focused programming for visitors in the town core.
Those are items that require working out with some of the business that are impacted by those decisions, and those discussions are under way. I hope and believe that they will proceed in a cooperative fashion with those concerned.
The Chairman: Mr. Lee, I do not wish to focus particularly on the Banff situation other than by using it as an example of appropriate process.
My question is related to the consideration of proposing an amendment to the legislation that would require this new agency, when dealing with a management plan for any park in Canada, to go through a public consultative process which I find lacking in the legislation. What is your view on that?
Mr. Lee: I do not have the bill in front of me, but it was my impression that the document did deal in quite an explicit fashion with the requirement for consultation. One of the comments that I received from one of the environmental constituencies in this case is that the proposed legislation was complete regarding the consultative mechanism.
I do not know whether there is a requirement or desire to detail that more explicitly, but certainly the consultative elements are adequately built into the bill and are adequately reflected in our current policies.
The Chairman: I am referring to the creation of a management plan for any particular park which, by legislation, would require a consultative process. I have not found it. Please direct me to that clause, if you would.
Mr. Lee: It will take me a minute.
The Chairman: Of course.
Mr. Lee: I would ask my staff to assist in that regard.
Senator Spivak: While that is being done, it has been pointed out by staff that the parks agency enterprise units will receive money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and they can operate with an annual deficit of up to $8 million. This is news to me. I do not know what concept is behind the enterprise units. Can you explain that to us? How many are there today? Where are they located? What kind of services do they provide? What kind of deficits or surpluses have they generated in the past? Under which section of the act were they created, and how are they defined in the statute?
Mr. Lee: I will deal generally with the nature of these accounts. We operate a number of items on a full cost-recovery basis and they function as an enterprise in that respect. The elements included in the enterprise accounts comprise six communities. They include the communities of Wasagaming in Riding Mountain; Waskesieu in Prince Albert; Jasper National Park; Lake Louise in Banff; Waterton in Waterton National Park; and Field in Yoho. There are two other facilities: Cape Breton Highlands Golf Course and the hot springs in the mountain parks. These accounts are set up so that moneys payable go into those facilities. They are given the money on a cost-recovery basis not only in terms of operation but also in terms of capital, so that if you need to redevelop the hot springs, you have the borrowing authority, and then that account is repayable. That is the way that those accounts operate.
The accounts are in various stages of implementation. The hot springs account is fully operational; the Cape Breton Highlands account is fully operational; and the community accounts are in various stages of implementation and elements still under discussion with the individual communities. We have not yet approached the $8-million borrowing limit on those accounts, but we will as we proceed to full implementation.
Senator Spivak: Is this like a line of credit which is available to them and it is it repayable?
Mr. Lee: That is right.
Senator Spivak: Is there an interest calculation?
Mr. Lee: Yes.
Senator Spivak: Has this been around for a long time?
Mr. Lee: No. The first one, the hot springs account, was brought in in approximately 1994 or 1995.
Senator Spivak: This may not be a relevant question but I must ask it. Is this just one aspect of the whole cost-recovery apparatus that now seems to be rampaging through the federal government?
Mr. Lee: No.
Senator Spivak: I have encountered this in other committees, and there are not always the best results, such as was the case with the Department of Health.
Mr. Lee: I would mention two elements regarding these accounts. For example, one would expect that the provision of a service such as golfing would not have to be subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer. That is set up on a cost-recoverable basis. The other element relates to the communities. Until 1995, Canadians had historically subsidized the infrastructure and the operating costs in town sites. We said that, to the extent that these town sites are communities like any other communities in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia or Saskatchewan, they should operate on the same type of financial accounting system as normal town sites. The fact that they are in a national park does not require that they be subsidized by Canadians. Those are the elements.
Senator Spivak: Is that the area they are limited to?
Mr. Lee: Yes.
Senator Spivak: I presume that the parks agency could get this money for other purposes and, if they should default, you would have to bail them out as you would if you were operating as a long-term credit capital hedge fund or something like that.
Mr. Lee: We are not in that large financial market yet.
Senator Spivak: It is a limited kind of use.
Mr. Lee: Yes. It is very specific. I do not want to prejudice anyone's future decisions, but we have nothing under consideration for expansion. It is difficult to contemplate other applications of this within the parks system. Those are the specific items. The golf course in Fundy National Park is not in that account system yet, but it might be at some date. Those are the fundamental elements that would go into the account system.
Senator Spivak: Is interest charged at a preferred government rate?
Mr. Lee: No; it is at a set rate. It is not a preferred borrowing rate.
The Chairman: We have come to the end of the time allotted for Mr. Lee and his officials.
Senator Cochrane: I should have expanded on some of the other questions but I was pinpointed to one particular topic.
Mr. Lee, we do not have any details about the transition to this agency. For instance, how much will it cost to set up this agency? After you have it set up, what will be your annual cost of administering this agency? What sort of staff will you have? What proportion of that cost will be financed by the users of the parks? These are questions to which I do not have the answers. Could you enlighten me?
Mr. Lee: Yes. I will get the figures in a moment. I will ask Mr. Tremblay to reply to your question about public consultation on management plans.
Mr. Laurent Tremblay, Executive Director for Quebec, Department of Canadian Heritage: On article 32, "legislation" referred to the legislation of national parks. Section 5(1.4) of the legislation concerning national parks states that "the minister shall, as appropriate, provide opportunities for public participation at the national, regional and local levels in the development of parks policy, management plans, and such other matters as the minister deems relevant."
The Chairman: I do not think that section covers what I have in mind. I have read that section. It talks in terms after the establishment of a national historic site. I am talking in terms of parks that exist today. I get a different reading of that section. That is not what I was referring to.
I am asking about management plans or amendments to management plans in existing parks and the manner by which those plans are changed, and my view of the necessity of a statutory requirement that mandates public input and hearings before those plans are amended or new plans are brought into place. Section 32 mentions a period of within five years after the establishment of a national historic site or other protected area.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, the section states that "the minister shall provide opportunities for public participation in the development of parks policy, in management plans..."
The Chairman: From which section are you reading?
Mr. Lee: I am reading from the National Parks Act.
The Chairman: When you said "section 32, " I thought you were referring to this bill.
Mr. Lee: No. I am saying that your concern is covered in the National Parks Act per se.
The Chairman: Would you read that section to me again?
Mr. Lee: Yes. It is section 5(1.4) of the National Parks Act. The explicit wording is:
The minister shall, as appropriate, provide opportunities for public participation at the national, regional and local levels in the development of parks policy...
That is the general policy of the agency, or in this case Parks Canada. It also applies to management plans, and such other matters as the minister deems relevant.
Mr. Chairman, you are correct in the sense that it is not explicitly provided for in the bill but it seems to be, in my opinion, provided for under the National Parks Act.
The Chairman: What you just read to me is permissive, not mandatory.
Mr. Lee: One could read it that way. It says "shall" and then "as appropriate."
The Chairman: Is that mandatory or permissive? It sounds like a lawyer's play on words.
Mr. Lee: I think the reference to "as appropriate" is in regards to providing opportunities for consultation at the local, regional and national levels. Clearly, if you are dealing with an item like Banff, you are really talking about that full range. However, if you are dealing with a small issue at a local historic site in one location, you may not expand that to a national level. It may not warrant that. That is how I would interpret the application. It says that she "shall," so it has to occur, but she has some discretion as to the scope, and that would depend on the issue that we were involved in in this agency.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Cochrane: I was not satisfied with some of the details that you gave me in regards to transition. Would you continue? This agency is to be set up here in Ottawa, is it not?
Mr. Lee: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Just how much will it cost to set up this agency? What will be your administration fees and staffing costs after that? Could you fill in those details?
Mr. Lee: Yes. I have not yet responded to your question but I will now because I have the details in front of me. The costs of the agency are calculated in terms of the overall reductions that were taking place and netted out but, basically, we have an overall reduction in the Parks Canada costs of $104 million. That is an annual reduction. We also have a continuing cost associated with implementing the agency of $2.8 million, so the overall reduction in the Parks Canada program, cost and reductions, is $104 million minus $2.8 million, which is $101.2 million, roughly. That is what has happened. That is a continuing situation. The one-time cost associated with establishing the agency, which includes bringing into place some of the things that Ms Bergeron described, such as the consultation with the unions, the revised classification and grievance systems, and so on, is roughly $4.9 million over two years.
Senator Cochrane: You have, it seems to me, quite a large amount of money to open up this agency. You mentioned the Halifax area. Are these regional offices going to be eliminated because decisions will be made now by the CEO here in Ottawa?
Mr. Lee: No. Let me outline for you the current organization because the organizational changes are already in place in the regional structures that we currently have as part of the department, and Parks Canada was part of that change. We once had full regional offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ontario, Quebec and Halifax. Those offices, with the exception of the Calgary and the Halifax offices, and to a lesser extent the Quebec office, are in fact already gone. The regional offices that we had in Winnipeg, Vancouver and Ontario were eliminated two years ago.
Senator Cochrane: You now only have three left?
Mr. Lee: We have two regional offices, one in Halifax and one in Calgary, and, as I indicated, there are roughly 10 or 12 people in those offices. Laurent Tremblay is our Director General for Quebec and we also have an equivalent position for the entire mountain parks system, a director general type of level. However, I would like to reiterate, senator, that the reduction programs are in place, so what is there now is what is intended to be there.
Senator Cochrane: How many staff will you have in the Ottawa office?
Mr. Lee: In the total Ottawa office, we have in the order of 200 staff. Because there are additional staff in Ottawa, we have a number of service centres across Canada, where our professional archaeologists, our planners, our historians, our engineers, and so on, are located. We have a service centre in Ottawa but it is not really part of the Ottawa organization. It is part of the service centres in Ontario.
Senator Cochrane: Have the personnel from these offices that have been closed been accommodated within the Ottawa office, or are you bringing new staff in here?
Mr. Lee: The reductions that took place occurred in the local areas, and people either took early-retirement options that were available to them or we were able to accommodate them within our organizational adjustments as we moved down, through vacancies and so on. I think it would be correct to say that no people were laid off, dismissed, or fired.
Ms Bergeron: That is correct.
Mr. Lee: That has all occurred. The 600 to 800 people to which I referred either were accommodated through an early-retirement benefit package provided by government or were accommodated in vacancies within the organization, but the overall number of staff was brought down.
Senator Cochrane: You have answered my question. None of these are employed or will be employed by the agency.
Mr. Lee: No. The Ottawa office obviously was downsized as well. It was downsized roughly by 30 per cent. The only functions that were moved into the Ottawa area were a small number of personnel functions, where we were previously carrying them out in eight different locations or six different regional centres. We could not decentralize those to the approximately 30 field locations because we cannot take six people and divide them in pieces. A very small number of personnel came into Ottawa, but the overall reductions in headquarters, in terms of people and space and so on, were larger than in the field offices.
Senator Cochrane: My concern with this agency is that it will be like quite a lot of other departments in that it will be top heavy in regards to the bureaucracy and will not have enough of the people down at the lower end doing the real work. While I am not by any means saying that the members of the top bureaucracy do not have a job to do, in a lot of cases we have too many up there and not enough down here. That is my concern.
Mr. Lee: In terms of your organizational theory, senator, I could not agree with you more. That is not the type of organization that is being created. Any examination of Parks Canada as it exists now or of the agency as it is being put in place would show that one of their characteristics is the lack of that overhead, the lack of an Ottawa bureaucracy, or of any bureaucracy getting in the way of people in the field doing their business. I can tell you I am vigilant on this. As I have said to the regional offices that are left, their objective is not to become another layer in an operational decision-making process.
You are there to take care of the big issues occurring in the west, Atlantic Canada or in Quebec, but not to second-guess the superintendent at Gros Morne park.
Senator Cochrane: I worry when you talk about the terms "increased flexibility" and "increased efficiency." I am concerned, because when it comes to words like "efficiency," that means fewer employees. Are you going to contract out? I know this question was already dealt with, but that is my concern.
The Chairman: Thank you, colleagues.
Mr. Lee, it is always a pleasure to have you come to our committee and speak so candidly with us.
Honourable senators, our next witnesses are representatives of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Welcome, gentlemen. Please proceed.
Mr. Steve Hindle, President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, for the opportunity to appear before your committee today.
The professional institute is the largest union representing professionals within the federal public service. We represent roughly 36,000 professionals across governments, including the governments of Manitoba and New Brunswick. We represent a broad range of professionals. We are here speaking mainly on behalf of the roughly 400 biologists, historical researchers, computer systems administrators, and other professionals affected by the legislation before you, Bill C-29.
Today we will be presenting to this committee the same brief, with the same five recommendations, that we provided to the Standing House Committee on Canadian Heritage on April 30 of this year. We have made no modifications because the report from that committee did not address any of our concerns. In fact, of the 29 instances where the Canadian Heritage Committee suggested amendments, 16 of them dealt in part or wholly with changing the name of the proposed agency from the Canadian Parks Agency to the Parks Canada Agency. While we concurred with this recommendation, and it was made by our colleagues from the public service alliance who appeared with us on April 30, it is not a major issue for our members.
We would also like to raise one concern not discussed during our appearance before the House, more specifically. Employees have been assured that there will be no job loss resulting from the creation of the agency. All employees occupying functions that would be transferred to the agency will receive offers of employment from the agency. The agency will honour the two-year employment guarantee provided by the existing Treasury Board work force adjustment directive. We believe that this two-year time-frame is too short. The employer has indicated a willingness to negotiate a collective agreement, a new work force adjustment policy, and to determine a classification system. It is our concern that there is insufficient time, within those two years, to accomplish this, thus leaving our members unprotected if a major reorganization occurs.
We would, therefore, recommend that the employment guarantee be maintained until such time as the workforce adjustment policy, collective agreements, and a system of classification are in effect. That is not contained in the brief before you, but it is a concern we wanted to bring forward.
Turning to the brief itself, I will only read major portions of it, not the whole brief. I will start with Part II, the ASD concept and the Canadian Parks Agency. We have closely followed the development of alternative service delivery as a concept since it was announced in the 1996 budget. We have established a special review committee on ASD initiatives, and we have also adopted a policy statement on alternative service delivery which we have included with this submission. The institute studies have identified many serious concerns about the proposed agency, concerns which apply equally to continuing ASD initiatives.
Our basic concern is whether ASD solutions are the best answer to problems in specific areas of government. We believe that, when problems are identified, government should consider whether they can be resolved through internal changes before embarking on radical reforms in service delivery.
While Treasury Board has laid out criteria for the adoption of ASD, it has not shown clearly how these criteria should be applied. An ASD solution may be justified in some cases, but we believe it must be demonstrated to be justified prior to the passage of legislation. ASD should not be embraced purely on the grounds of ideology.
The new Canadian Parks Agency, among its other obligations, must protect significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage, in national parks, national historic sites, and in marine conservation areas, and must present that heritage through interpretative and educational programs for the public. It must also maintain ecological and commemorative integrity as a prerequisite of the use of national parks and national historic sites.
We are told in the briefing notes that accompanied this bill that, as part of government savings, the Parks Canada program will receive approximately $104 million less in its annual appropriations, yet still continue to meet program objectives, and that the authorities provided in this legislation are designed to assist the agency in meeting those objectives.
The rationale is that the agency will have greater flexibility in managing its revenues, its contract arrangements and its capital holdings. Moreover, it will have full responsibility for collective bargaining and for the establishment of other human resources management. With respect to collective bargaining, however, clause 15 of the bill requires that collective bargaining be in accordance with the negotiating mandate approved by the President of the Treasury Board.
The initial rationale for this undertaking is that $104 million has been cut from annual appropriations, which has resulted in a need for more efficient operations. We submit that many of those cuts in personnel have already taken place and that delivery of service will be adversely affected, no matter how the organization is structured. Where is the business plan that justifies such a radical alteration? The structure outlined in Bill C-29 leaves many questions unanswered, and we will be raising some of those questions today.
The government has concluded that the most efficient way to manage our parks and other national treasures is through a new agency established under the banner of ASD, but it is difficult to discern how effective the new agency will be and to whom it will be accountable. The proposed legislation first designates a minister who will be accountable to Parliament for the new agency and its direction.
The bill allows the minister to delegate any power except that of making regulations, but is silent on how this will work in practice. There is to be an advisory board of stakeholders to advise the minister when he or she wants advice, but no provision is made for a board of directors to oversee the agency's operations or strategy. It is significant to note that employees are not mentioned as potential stakeholders.
Clause 16 makes the chief executive officer responsible for establishing a charter for the agency that sets out the values and principles governing the provisions of service by the agency to the public, and the management of the human resources of the agency. This charter will be made public. For the past several months, a joint union-management working group has been developing a human resources code of ethics for the new agency. We believe that this will be incorporated into the charter. However, what is to prevent the chief executive officer, or his or her designate, or his or her predecessors, from unilaterally changing this code or the charter? Where is the assurance that consultation with employees will continue to take place?
The chief executive officer must, at least every five years, have an external body prepare a report on the consistency of its human resources regime with the values and principles that are to govern the management of its human resources. That is found in clause 35. Other than this legislated five year review, who will enforce the charter?
We believe that five years is too long a period to wait for a review to take place. Some mechanism should be established for more frequent reporting, such as the biannual reports to Parliament on the state of the parks, as in clause 31; or the annual submissions of the corporate plan, contained in clause 33.
Clause 8(f) states that the agency may enter into contracts, acquire and sell property and "do anything that is necessary or incidental to the furtherance of the purposes of the agency." Furthermore, the minister may delegate to the agency the authority to set fees, subject to Treasury Board guidelines. Again, there is no real independence from the Treasury Board.
This further blurs the lines of accountability. Under clause 13, the CEO has exclusive authority to supervise and direct the agency's work and its staff. This officer also has power to appoint employees of the agency -- an issue to which we will return later.
It seems that the new agency will be a part of government when it suits the minister or when there are questions in the House of Commons. At other times, it will be independently run by a CEO, subject only to occasional input from an advisory board and periodic financial review by the Auditor General.
The responsible minister's power to direct the agency seems to conflict with the authority of the CEO. It seems that budgetary control will stay with Treasury Board, and fee setting will depend on the minister because it involves regulations. Moreover, as per clause 15, the chief executive officer may enter into collective agreements with bargaining agents, as long as these are in accordance with the negotiating mandate approved by the President of the Treasury Board.
What is really happening here? Will the agency have any real autonomy, or is its main purpose to create new avenues for contracting out and reducing staff? Are the accountability issues we have outlined here a precedent for future ASD agencies, or will the government step back and clarify who will be responsible for what? The professional institute accepts that there is a case to separate Parks Canada, and forming an organization where its mandate and resources are not subsumed by the demands and direction of a larger department.
We are not yet convinced that the case has been made for this new kind of hybrid agency, which is half in and half out of the government's structure. We are concerned for our own members who, it would appear, will have the worst of both worlds when it comes to labour relations jurisdiction.
We are equally concerned about the implications for the Canadian public, whose national parks, historic monuments and marine conservation areas will be under the guardianship of the new agency. We ask the committee to pay particular attention to the following questions.
First, what advantages does the proposed agency offer over Parks Canada's current management of these national resources? Second, under the new agency's structure, who will actually be in charge: the responsible minister, the chief executive officer, or Parliament? Third, will the CEO account to Parliament for the use of taxpayers' money or will it be to the minister? Fourth, will Parliament have any ability to oversee the operations of the agency? Fifth, will the new agency establish its budget independently, or will it be subject to review and possible roll-backs from the minister or from the Treasury Board?
I should like to deal for a moment with the impact on labour relations. The professional institute represents a large majority of the professionals who work at Parks Canada now and who will work at a new agency if it is created. At present, all of those employees are considered to be employees of the Treasury Board, appointed by the Public Service Commission. However, under Bill C-29, employees who are transferred to the Canadian Parks Agency, or are appointed to it by the Public Service Commission, will be employed by the agency itself. The institute is concerned about the impact of Bill C-29 on labour relations. Our submission suggests amendments that will address those concerns while preserving the labour relations intent of the legislation, which is to create a separate employer with the authority to negotiate its own terms and conditions of employment, although subject to approval by Treasury Board. Without the proposed amendments, employees of the agency will be stripped of many important rights that other federal government employees currently have, and for no discernible reason. Members of the committee should be aware that the same rights are at stake, not only for the more than 4,000 federal employees who will work for the new agency, but for many thousands more public employees.
In the 1996 budget, the government announced an intention to create three new separate employers to take over not only the management of Canada's parks, but also food inspection and functions currently performed by Revenue Canada. It is estimated that these three new separate employers will, together, employ about 48,000 federal employees. This number is far in excess of the approximately 18,500 persons who at that time were employed by separate employers created by the federal government. It now appears that all three new separate employers will be subject to the same statutory framework as the food inspection agency, and consideration is being given to creating yet more separate employers under the same regime.
I will bypass the detail on the statutory framework, and so on, and get right into the recommendations that we would like to make, so that we can then move on to questions and answers.
The institute recommends specific amendments to Bill C-29 in order to ensure that Canadian parks agency employees are not needlessly stripped of important rights that are well established for mainstream federal employees. First, consistent with Parliament's intent to give the agency the flexibility to develop and negotiate its own labour relations system, Bill C-29 should be amended to preclude the application of sections 7 and 69(3) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act to the agency. This will allow bargaining agents to bargain about those matters presently addressed by the Public Service Employment Act.
Second, a clause should be added to the bill to provide that, notwithstanding subsections 92(1)(b) and (c) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, employees of the agency may refer to adjudication, grievances with respect not only to disciplinary action resulting in a financial penalty, but also to termination of employment, suspension or demotion, whether for disciplinary cause or not.
Third, failing the acceptance of the first recommendation, the agency could either be put under the statutory framework of the Canada Labour Code, or kept under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act, in order to maintain access to the Public Service Commission as an impartial arbiter for appeals.
The briefing notes accompanying the bill indicated that the agency chose to remain under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, rather than the Canada Labour Code, because the Canada Labour Code applies to organizations that are commercially oriented. This is clearly not the case for the national museums, which are under the code, and which provide a service to Canadians similar to that of Parks Canada -- nor are they commercially oriented.
In effect, the Canadian parks agency will become a land management organization that must commercialize portions of its operations because there is no guaranteed funding for expansion.
In fact, the institute represents employees in other not-for-profit organizations, such as Weeneebayko General Hospital and the Fort Qu'Appelle Indian Hospital, that are governed by the Canada Labour Code.
The Museums of Civilization, Nature, Science and Technology, and the National Gallery were legislated as corporations in January 1990. It has been the institute's experience, and, we believe, that of employers, that a positive labour relations climate has been maintained under the Canada Labour Code.
Fourth, clause 35 should be amended to require the chief executive officer to have a report prepared every two years on the consistency of its human resources regime with the values and principles that are supposed to govern the management of its human resources.
Finally, there must be some mechanism established that would enable agency employees access to transfers and competitions in the public service and allow public service employees to apply for agency positions as internal candidates. This would increase mobility and career advancement opportunities for employees and provide the agency with a larger pool of potential candidates. The department's briefing notes on the legislation state that one reason for remaining under the Public Service Staff Relations Act would be to allow employees access to job opportunities in the public service. However, there is no guarantee of that.
If Bill C-29 is to be adopted without amendments to reflect the concerns we have raised, an important portion of the public service will lose its non-partisan character and the guarantee that hiring will comply with the merit principle. Employees will lose faith in the new organization because they will have lost all protection in staffing matters.
We ask you, as members of the committee, not to let this happen. Even at this late date, you have the power to make the modest changes that are needed in order to respond to our concerns.
Senator Cochrane: Do you have any concerns about what might happen to contract and seasonal employees in the Canada Parks service?
Mr. Hindle: Seasonal employees generally do not fall under collective agreements negotiated with the employer. We do have some concerns as to how an employer with such broad powers would deal with people employed for short periods of time. However, this is not a large concern of our members because our members tend to be for longer-term periods.
Senator Cochrane: I understand that PSAC is supporting this legislation. Do you have any views as to why? Why are they of a different opinion from you people? Why is it they do not have concerns?
Mr. Hindle: PSAC does have concerns. Perhaps what you are seeing is that the Public Service Alliance has larger issues that they need to deal with. While they have concerns, they do not have a lot of faith that the government of the day is listening to them on a wide range of issues, including the impact on their members of legislation creating new agencies.
PSAC is taking the approach that they must deal with the agency, no matter what they say in front of a Senate committee or a House of Commons committee. They have had concerns; they expressed them to a committee in front of the house. Perhaps they were being a little bit more pragmatic than the professional institute.
We have a serious concern about the concept itself, in addition to the specific labour relations issues that we have raised. The whole idea of breaking up government and forming small agencies, small employers, that are not really separate, yet are called separate, causes serious concerns for us about our ability to represent our members. We are concerned about what will happen if this trend continues and goes much further in the government.
Senator Kenny: I have a question to the Chairman. Did we invite PSAC and did they have an opportunity to appear before us? What did they say when they were invited?
The Chairman: They were invited and they declined the invitation.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Hindle, I accept that they may have a broad range of issues that they are concerned about. However, this is a parliamentary committee, and usually when people are concerned they come and tell us.
Mr. Hindle: Normally they would. I do not purport to speak on behalf of the Public Service Alliance. I am just giving you my perception, based on conversations that I have had with senior officials within the alliance. They are concerned about the breaking up of the government as well. I do not know the specific reason they chose not to appear here, nor would I be able to give you a specific reason why they might be supportive of a Canadian parks agency -- other than there is a case to be made for taking Parks Canada out from under a larger department and giving it an organization of its own.
Our point in this submission is that the model created is not the most appropriate model. It should either be a full government department, under the control of the Government of Canada, or it should be a truly separate employer under the Canada Labour Code. However, the proposal put forward in Bill C-29 is to put it half in and half out of government. That, we think, is totally inappropriate.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Chairman, I do agree with one of the recommendations that this gentleman has suggested -- that there be some mechanism established that would enable the agency employees to have access to transfers and competition in the public service. That makes for good relationships within an organization and makes for learning of the other employees. It makes for sharing. I think that is a good recommendation.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Mr. Hindle, reference was made to PSAC. I had the opportunity to read the brief that was presented to the house committee reviewing the bill, and I had the impression from that brief that the process being developed with respect to the human resources regime in the parks was, in PSAC's view, relatively positive.
You mentioned the development of a human resources code that you worked on in conjunction with this bill. Your concern was the maintenance of it and the opportunity for review. Do I have that correct? I know you are not speaking for PSAC; however, I take it that that may be their position as well.
Mr. Blair Stannard, Vice-President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, there are a couple of issues here. One of the issues facing PSAC is quite different because of the nature of their work force. They have a lot of part-time and casual people. We represent the professionals, who tend to be indeterminate employees.
One type of situation that could arise in this organization, were it to go ahead the way it is, has been evidenced by recent happenings at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is a similar type of organization. It has not been finalized exactly as to which employees would go into the parks agency and which would remain with Canadian Heritage, or whether services would be bought from Canadian Heritage or contracted out elsewhere.
There is a parallel activity at Canadian Heritage to contract out a large portion of the computer systems work, for example. I believe the contract is somewhere in the area of $140 million over seven years. That represents about 80 per cent of the current informatics budget.
When you are dealing with an agency and you have a small group of professionals -- in this case I believe there are about 100 computer systems people working within Heritage Canada also servicing Parks Canada -- you must have a mechanism whereby these people can be recruited and retained.
The situation at the food agency was that the federal computer systems people came to a tentative agreement with the Treasury Board of Canada. As a result, the rates of pay and other benefits available to those people, the vast majority of whom are referred to CSs, exceeded those available to people who were in computer systems in the agency.
Within 24 hours, the computer systems people within that agency made it known to their management that if they were not given an equivalent benefit, they would all be resigning and returning to the federal public service. This meant that the agency would lose almost their entire computer systems knowledge base overnight. It resulted in the president of the agency phoning the president of PIPS to see what could be done.
What complicated matters was the fact that because it was a small agency, they had already made agreements as to the merging of the bargaining units. Therefore, these people were not even in a separate bargaining unit. They were part of a larger bargaining unit for professionals.
If the agency were to go ahead under this current regime of PSSRA without PSEA, and there were not some type of guaranteed career path back and forth, the agency could potentially be in a position where they would face a similar circumstance, because of the market forces. There are not a lot of computer systems people out on the street collecting employment insurance these days. I think we all know that.
The federal government, by its own figures, has told us they have 3,000 vacancies; so why would someone be encouraged to go to a smaller agency with the possibility that they could never have access to those 3,000 jobs?
I understand that the agencies have also recognized that there is this type of problem. They are trying to find a way that they could -- either between the separate employers or between the government and the employers -- arrange that this type of career development and job progression would be available so that they could retain those people. These are essential skills in this day and age.
We can put protection into the legislation in a very simple way. It is just one more way of ensuring the continuity of an operation without suddenly having the chief executive officer call the union to say, "What can we do so that we do not lose all of our professionals in this key area"?
It is a challenge. I do not know the solution, but putting something into the legislation would make the employees feel a lot more comfortable. The intentions of today's management may well be in good faith and carried out, but if the protection is not there in the legislation, how do the employees know that it will be the same with future management teams?
Senator Fitzpatrick: I thought at the beginning of your remarks, Mr. Hindle, you said that you had worked on a code for human resources. I took that to mean that you had some satisfaction with it. Did I mishear that?
Mr. Hindle: You are correct, senator. We have had good progress and good discussions with the management and the people working at setting up the agency. Frankly, we have had far better discussions with them than we did with the people setting up the food inspection agency, even better than the experience we have had now that that agency is up and operating.
The discussions with Parks Canada have been very open and useful. We still do not agree on the concept embodied in the legislation. However, the people we have been dealing with have been quite helpful and useful.
The Chairman: For the record, I have a copy of the brief submitted to the Commons committee by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. In there, they state that their purpose in presenting the brief is to provide qualified support for the intentions of Bill C-29, to create an organization, the Parks Canada Agency, which operates separately from other departments. They are on record as giving qualified support, Mr. Hindle.
Mr. Hindle: Yes.
Senator Spivak: Perhaps you could comment on the fact that separate employees are treated differently under section 92 of the PSSRA when it comes to grievances relating to a non-disciplinary suspension, demotion or termination. That has been rectified by a separate order overriding that exclusion with regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. You are recommending that that be done here. That is a very important measure, is it not? We see this happening in disputes between management and employees that relate to differences that are non-disciplinary.
Mr. Hindle: It is quite important. It is the exception, in terms of problems with labour-management relations and employee-employer relations, that an issue will get to a point where it is that serious. When it does get to a serious stage, we believe that access to the Staff Relations Board is the more appropriate mechanism for dealing with it if this agency is to be half in and half out of government. We are looking for provisions similar to those made for the food inspection agency.
Senator Spivak: Do you rate that highly, as something that ought to be recommended through this committee?
Mr. Hindle: I would, senator.
Senator Spivak: Clause 8(b) of the bill states that the agency may not only acquire, but sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of property. What is your view? If the agency were pressed for funds, this means that it could sell off some of the national parks or heritage sites. Is that correct, or am I wrong?
Mr. Hindle: That would be my understanding of those words in their simplest meaning. They could conceivably sell a park.
Senator Spivak: Is this a new power? That was always a power under the original act.
Mr. Hindle: I believe it would take the government to actually do it. This would remove it one step from government and put that authority with the agency.
Senator Spivak: I am sure the agency would not want it to happen, but if it had to happen because of a lack of funds, the government could say that this is a decision for the agency.
Mr. Hindle: They certainly could.
Senator Spivak: What is the protection? I ought to have asked that of our previous witnesses.
The Chairman: You can ask the minister when he appears tomorrow.
Mr. Hindle: That might be more appropriate.
In short, senator, I would say that I share your concern.
The Chairman: I am still having trouble understanding why this legislation is coming forward. I still feel that many of the positive things in the legislation could easily have been handled by regulations or amendments to legislation. There are many positive things in this bill that I think are very useful.
Mr. Hindle: Agreed.
The Chairman: However, I am not persuaded you need an agency to do it. I do not understand the real motivation behind the creation of this agency. I will ask the minister that question tomorrow, but I would like to get a sense of your perspective, if you have one, as to what is really behind this legislation.
Mr. Hindle: I will offer a perspective, and I will advise that it is just a perspective.
We, too, do not know what is motivating this government to move portions of the public service out of the public service into these new agencies. The view, from where we sit, is that it is motivated by a desire to reduce the number of "public servants"; that it is motivated by a desire to tell Canadians that the government has reduced its size, and that its administration is much smaller than under previous governments.
In reality, they are shifting people from the federal public service, as it is embodied in legislation, into the larger public sector without providing, for the people who are moving, the protection that you would expect if they were not in government.
Our main approach to this has been, if you are going to go to separate employer status, then go all the way -- put them under the Canada Labour Code.
We have some problems with the Canada Labour Code and we do understand that it does not provide the same mechanisms for resolving a dispute through contract negotiations as is provided for in the Public Service Staff Relations Act. However, there is a trade-off, for the full scope of collective bargaining would be available under the Canada Labour Code. In other words, we would be able to bargain everything that applies to the terms and conditions of employment of someone working under the Canada Labour Code.
We deal with the museums we mentioned and we deal with Atomic Energy of Canada under the Canada Labour Code. It is different legislation; however, it is legislation that allows the parties to work out their issues together.
In short, the perspective is that they want government to be seen to be smaller. Whether or not they actually achieve smaller government or reduction in expenditures remains to be seen. It is still the Canadian taxpayer who is footing the bill for the agency, the same way they are footing the bill for Parks Canada as it currently exists within government.
The Chairman: It sounds to me as if, to a degree, it is a bit of a public relations exercise.
Mr. Hindle: That is a fair characterization.
The Chairman: I was always of the understanding that the more bargaining units that are out there, the better it is for you. In the sense that, if you have smaller segments, you can bargain independently and then you can play one against the other and you end up with a bunch of bargaining units out there that really works to labour's advantage. Is that not advantageous to you, to have another agency in which to bargain rather than larger bargaining units?
Mr. Hindle: It does raise the possibility of an advantage. However, there is the disadvantage of a more complex organization to manage and the additional administrative costs for the bargaining agents to deal with more than one employer.
I will provide an example. We have 29 bargaining units within the federal public service. They represent roughly 29,000 of our 36,000 members. That will change with the government's implementation of the universal classification standard. We are going down to five bargaining units, the same 29,000 employees, presumably. Each of those bargaining units thus becomes larger and has a little more clout on its own. We also reduce our costs for administering agreements for 29 bargaining units to the cost of administering agreements for five bargaining units.
What we lose in this is the ability to deal with specific issues on behalf of specific members. For example, our nursing group, currently certified as a single bargaining unit, will be rolled into a bargaining unit called health care. They will be in that unit with doctors, pharmacists, social workers, occupational physiotherapists and psychologists, amongst others. Therefore, the ability to deal with strictly nursing issues at the bargaining table is diluted by the creation of larger units.
At the same time as there are advantages, there are disadvantages. It is a matter of trade-offs. As with going under the Canada Labour Code, there is a trade-off for us. There are fewer mechanisms for resolving a dispute, yet there is a broader range of issues we can bring to the table. It is six of one, half dozen of the other.
The Chairman: Do you have a preference?
Mr. Hindle: The preference would be for the Canada Labour Code. Actually, we would like to deal with the full range of issues at the table.
Senator Spivak: You point out that under clause 8, the agency may, in carrying out its responsibilities, enter into contracts, agreements, memoranda of understanding or other arrangements and so on. Does this mean contracting out is possible?
Mr. Hindle: Yes.
Senator Spivak: Do you think this is part of the trend in private industry for outsourcing which has resulted in economies of scale? In government, however, very often it means -- contracting out means -- that you simply say that you have reduced the public service, but then there are these hoards of consultants under some other thing which probably amount to the same thing.
Could you comment on that whole corporate mentality -- outsourcing things -- and apart from its inherent value, how it might work out in the public area?
Mr. Hindle: We have some very serious concerns about the use of contracting out. We recognize that there are situations that call for a unique expertise that is not normally found in government. Or that there is a concern or an issue which needs to be dealt with over a very short period of time, which requires a massive influx of people who would not be needed once the issue is dealt with. We would see situations like that as the appropriate ones for the use of contract personnel.
Our concern is that the government has taken this approach -- and it is partly due to what happened as a result of six years of wage restraint, five of those years being zero per cent increase -- because of the inability to recruit and retain highly qualified professionals. Because the salaries, the compensation and the terms and conditions of employment, were not competitive with private industry.
Departments found themselves in the situation of needing highly qualified professionals for longer periods of time but being unable to pay them market rates. They found a mechanism to pay them market rates through the use of contracts. What that meant was, you had people in government performing essentially the same function, given different terms and conditions of employment, paid different amounts of money.
Our position with government has always been, if you are willing to pay a certain amount for a contractor with a certain skill set, why are you not willing to pay a public service employee the same amount? That is also taking into consideration all the benefits that come with being an employee. The envelope is roughly 30 per cent of salary in terms of the other benefits. We can find numerous cases where the amount paid for services goes well beyond public service employee rates of pay plus 30 per cent. We are talking about situations where the amount paid for a contract is more than double what it would be, including benefits, to have a public service employee do it.
Senator Spivak: In view of the government's commitment to good, long-term, permanent employment for its citizens, do you think that this segue into creating agencies is in line with that goal or contradicts that goal?
Mr. Hindle: I am not sure. I do not think we have enough experience with the newly created agencies to see whether or not the agencies will be funded and allocated resources at a level that allows them to offer that sort of long-term, continuing employment.
My suspicion might be that long-term, continuing employment is in jeopardy. The creation of the agencies themselves raises the fundamental question of how long will it be before that structure is changed by this government or by a subsequent government. It is putting people into a less certain work environment than they have in the public service.
The Chairman: It may, in fairness, Mr. Hindle, provide a stronger element of stability to your employees within the agency, rather than this lack of stability, where one day they are under one department and another day under another, that has been the history of Parks Canada. There is a stability element to this, which is a favourable matter, would you not agree?
Mr. Hindle: That too is a possibility.
The Chairman: Only a possibility.
Mr. Hindle: It is a possibility. I am not saying it is likely.
The Chairman: We are in somewhat uncharted waters here.
Mr. Hindle: That is what I am looking at.
The Chairman: We will now adjourn until one o'clock this afternoon, at which time our next witness will be forthcoming.
The committee adjourned.