Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 2 - Evidence - November 28, 2013
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 28, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 2:03 p.m. to study the subject-matter of Bill C- 4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this afternoon we will continue our study on the subject-matter of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.
[English]
The Chair: This afternoon we will be discussing two divisions in Part 3 of Bill C-4. Division 17 contains measures relating to the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act and can be found at page 229 of the English version of the bill; and Division 18 contains measures relating to the proposed public service labour relations and employment board and can be found at page 260 in the English version of the bill.
We received some written submissions that are not here for distribution but have been sent to all members. There are written submissions from the Association of Justice Counsel dated November 2013; from the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees dated November 20, 2013 and November 28, 2013, including an explanation of the submission — we thank you for both documents; from the Canadian Bar Association, dated November 18, 2013, but they were unable to find someone to attend so they were content to rely on their written submission; from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, dated November 26, 2013, in addition to any oral presentation made today; and from Fair Pensions for All, which was received and circulated and, I believe, will be followed in the oral presentation.
Honourable senators, during our two-hour meeting this afternoon, we will hear from Christine Collins, National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees; and from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Robyn Benson, National President, and Edith Bramwell, General Counsel. Thank you for being here.
By video conference, we will hear from Bill Tufts, Founder and Executive Director of Fair Pensions for All.
Perhaps we could start in that order with your general opening remarks, followed by questions and answers. Ms. Collins, please proceed.
Christine Collins, National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
The Union of Canadian Transportation Employees is the national union for the majority of workers at Transport Canada, the Coast Guard, Canada's federally regulated airports and others, such as the Canadian Transportation Agency and NAV CANADA. UCTE is a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Our experiences are different than other groups within the PSAC, given that our members are responsible for the safety and security of the traveling public. Many of our UCTE members are designated essential and have been so for many years. Based on our members' unique experiences, I recognize and support the need for essential services.
I have been a union leader most of my working life. I am quite dismayed today with the public and political misrepresentation of union leaders, unions and what we do. It's a sad day when positions are set and decisions are taken based on ideology and emotion and not on facts or what is in the public interest. It is a sad day for our members, the traveling public, and workers in Canada.
The precepts of Bill C-4 are based on the ideology that work places are dysfunctional and that unions somehow are responsible for society's ills, even if the premise itself is wrong. The fact is that, in my experience, union-management relations are not broken and that harmonious relationships between the employer and the bargaining agents can actually result in a more effective and efficient workplace. Indeed, in the case of Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard, our relations are good, and the results are beneficial for these organizations and for the public, which relies on these programs and services.
The basis for my positive comments is the fact that we work daily with management on workplace issues, but also on policy, procedures, regulations and legislation and how these foundational principles are put into practice by the workforce, our members, such as our Transport Canada inspectors or Coast Guard search and rescue or airport firefighters. Harmonious and consultative relations start with labour management committees and the principles set out in the 2003 Public Service Modernization Act.
One key element missing from Bill C-4 is that the deputy head of an organization is at the top of a very large and complex institution. This senior executive is ultimately responsible for ensuring that his or her organization achieves the objectives set out in the responsible statutes. This deputy head is the person that is in the position to understand which positions are truly essential and which are not. Central agencies or horizontal organizations in charge of horizontal policy development are not truly in a position to know, nor should they be. The deputy head should be responsible, and when there is that responsibility, a departmental organization can be effective, efficient and accountable.
A decade or more ago, decisions around essential designations were made from the ground up. In other words, each responsible manager and bargaining agent delegate in the operational unit worked together on the plan and the designation, and, unit by unit, division by division, these agreements and plans would form the basis of a departmental plan. When essential services agreements were negotiated, decision-making was quick, effective and consensual.
When central agencies are responsible, sometimes we find that we are constantly playing catch-up, often attempting to sort out issues that were issues years before. Negotiations are difficult and key issues sometimes remain unresolved. Collective agreements are reached at the expiry of the agreement itself. It is for this reason that we believe the deputy head, in consultation with bargaining agents and with Treasury Board, should be responsible for essential worker designations. Workplace consultative procedures and mechanisms are in place at the departmental level, and these can be used to achieve consensus and agreements before decisions are made.
During the question period, I would be happy to provide you with an example of how this process works and how we have been able to achieve success in the past.
At this time, we are discussing Bill C-4 in the Senate. The chances of a more collaborative consultation do not exist, but it is in your power to make modest changes where those changes are in the public interest. That is why we are recommending two small wording changes in the bill. We are proposing that sections 119(1) and 120(1) be amended to substitute ``deputy head'' for ``employer.'' With these changes, we believe the result will be a more effective, efficient, accountable and responsible workplace.
In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to present these modest changes and to participate in further discussion.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I would let honourable senators know that sections 119 and 120 appear to be in clause 305 of the bill, on page 232.
We will move to our next presenter. Ms. Benson, do you have a presentation to make at this stage? Ms. Bramwell?
Robyn Benson, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada: I do, and I thank you very much for inviting us to appear before the committee.
The changes in Divisions 17 and 18 of Bill C-4 were introduced without any consultation whatsoever with labour, and this, quite frankly, is unprecedented. Normally, broad consultation takes place when changes to labour law are being considered. For example, the 2003 Public Service Modernization Act was only introduced after almost three years of discussion and studies involving stakeholders, the Staff Relations Board and academics.
This time, the government developed its plans in secret, behind closed doors, and they deliberately included the changes in a budget bill so that they could fast-track them without the discussion and open debate they deserve. The changes send a strong message to public service workers that their employer doesn't respect their work and the services they provide to this country.
Bill C-4 ignores the fundamental principles of freedom of association and the right to strike. It rewrites the rules that affect bargaining, the choice of dispute resolution, essential services designation and arbitration.
Our written submission contains the details of our many concerns, but today I will address just three.
First, the designation of essential services: Our union believes that, during a strike, services should be maintained at a level that ensures there is no possible danger to the safety and security of the Canadian public. In fact, PSAC members were on strike the morning of September 11, 2001. We brought our lines down immediately, and our members returned to work quickly and without question.
We have agreed to thousands of positions being deemed essential. We take balancing the interests of the public, our members and the employer very seriously.
Bill C-4 now gives the government the power to unilaterally decide who is essential and what services are essential. Employees declared essential can be asked to perform all of their duties, not just those that are essential.
The right to challenge the government's opinion about what is essential before an independent labour board has now been removed. It has been removed even though the current law and jurisprudence require the labour board to err on the side of the safety and security of the public.
Balance and fairness are gone. The government can't be held accountable because there is no avenue for appeal.
Second, dispute resolution: Legal experts have said that a union's right to choose arbitration creates a level playing field because it balances Parliament's ability to legislate an end to a strike and order arbitration. Bill C-4 takes away the right to choose arbitration. Now it will only be available if the employer agrees or where the employer has designated 80 per cent of the bargaining unit as essential. It's not hard to imagine the government using its new powers to designate just under 80 per cent of a unit. This leaves the remaining workers with a limited ability to strike, and then they can't choose arbitration.
Bill C-4 also increases the restrictions on what public interest commissions and arbitration boards can consider when making their awards.
Third, one of the worst of the changes is to the grievance process. Policy grievances have been used to streamline the grievance process. They have made the system more efficient and cost effective for the employer, as well as for the unions, because one policy grievance can replace dozens, if not hundreds, of individual grievances. The change in Bill C-4 would only allow a policy grievance to be filed where an individual grievance could not be filed, and that's just about never.
Bill C-4 will make widespread and fundamental changes to labour relations laws covering all government workers. I ask that you remove Divisions 17 and 18 from this bill.
I also recommend that the government engage in real consultation with bargaining agents, employer groups and labour relations experts.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Benson.
Ms. Bramwell, did you have anything to add?
Edith Bramwell, General Counsel, Public Service Alliance of Canada: PSAC's brief was presented by Ms. Benson, our National President.
The Chair: We've received your written brief, dated November 20, as well, and you stand by what's in there?
Ms. Bramwell: Absolutely.
The Chair: Nothing needs to be changed or referred to? We have both of those and thank you, Ms. Benson, for that information.
We will engage in discussion in due course but first we will go to our video conference and welcome Bill Tufts, Founder and Executive Director, Fair Pensions for All.
Bill Tufts, Founder and Executive Director, Fair Pensions for All: We are here today and I think what we would like to do is look at the broad overview, the big picture of what's happening with Bill C-4. As we examine Bill C-4 and why it's important to Canadians, we see that one of the main features of the bill is the ability to bring fairness and affordability to public sector employment.
We would like to look into some particular aspects of the bill and address income equality, fairness in pensions and seniors in poverty. Addressing these issues in a way that's fair for all Canadians and sustainable for the next generations is of the utmost importance. We think this bill is about allowing the government to listen to the voices on the streets, and the message the government is getting is obviously that there need to be changes in the public sector to bring fairness back vis-à-vis taxpayers.
When we talk about public sector compensation, it seems fashionable to compare their compensation with the top 1 per cent in society. This is a false comparison. If we expand our definition we will find a large portion of the public sector is in the top 10 per cent of upper income levels. In our work, we find the average income levels of all levels of government employees entrenches these employees firmly into this group. However, when we move into retirement and look at pensions and Canadians over 65, the public sector with their defined benefit pensions makes up an even larger portion of the upper crust.
We suggest that this committee keep the average working Canadian in mind when analyzing public sector compensation. After all, it is the average Canadian who will be most affected by the smallest changes in taxation levels. In 2011, the average working wage in Canada was $40,500. Since 2003 we have seen the average public sector total compensation package rise to $114,100 in a recent PBO report, including the total cost of pensions, benefits, and salaries. This number aligns with studies we look at across the country. For example, the average city employee in Guelph earns $113,000 with an average salary of $87,313.
What makes this compensation both alarming and unfair is that the average public sector worker in Canada earns $40,500. In a time when inflationary trends are causing financial challenges for average families, it is important for the government to put downward pressure on these public sector salaries and give the average private sector family a tax break.
The effect of rising salaries in the public sector also has a negative effect on public sector pension plans. For every dollar a public sector employee will earn in salary, the pension fund will have to find $16 more in order to fund their pension for the rest of their life. We think it's important to address the pensions in the public sector system.
When the pensions system was created, the expectation was that an employee would spend 30 years working and retire for 12 to 15 years. Preliminary results from a recent study from the Canadian Institute of Actuaries shows that the average life expectancy for a female public sector worker is 89.4 years and for a male it was 87.3. The average federal employee retiring all age 60 today will often be in retirement longer than they worked. Pension plans were designed to pay out longer than an employee paid into them.
There is a big trend that we would ask to take into consideration when we look at the broad trend, which we feel this bill addresses. It is controlling compensation costs, which at any level of government is the single largest cost of running government. It is anywhere from 80 per cent to 50 per cent depending on the level of government. We are looking at federal, provincial and municipal governments and in our studies and we think it's important that the federal government be the leader in addressing some of the challenges and costs that we face today.
We find that we're just two years into the baby boomer retirement. Those who turned age 65, turned 65 two years ago. Many of our pension plans in the country are already broken. The last time we were here at the Senate, we did a study into Crown corporations and their pension costs. Our report called Bigger Bailouts and Deeper Holes outlined some of the problems that existed in the public sector pensions.
Recently Canada Post announced that next year alone it will require $1 billion just to the fund the costs and liabilities associated with pensions. I know that's somewhat outside the worker group we are considering today, but those are part of the same trends and issues that need to be addressed.
So we all bring to the table some realistic solutions that Bill C-4 is about. Today you will hear lots of details on the legal technicalities of threats. You're going to hear from the unions about the Charter of Rights, the court challenges coming out of this bill and the union action that will be contemplated.
On Tuesday we were with the Finance Committee at the House of Commons, and the union representatives there seemed to indicate that 2014 will be a year of discontent as worker action rages across the public sector employee groups at the federal level.
What we would like to address with this bill — that we are hoping it will do and provide — is base public sector compensation on private sector averages. One of the issues up in the air now that the labour unions are pushing hard is changes to the Canada Pension Plan. We think it would be wise to avoid any significant changes at this time. Convert pension plans in the public sector to defined contribution and look at what we can do to provide a sustainable level of support for Canadians in their retirement security years.
We do not have a whole lot of time to go into the technical aspects of some of the things we will be talking about today. I recall that we had this very bill pre-empted five or six years ago. At that point I was a representative of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce given my expertise and background as an employee benefits consultant, and it seems we're here again and there are a lot of issues around collective agreements and who is going to be considered an essential worker.
Thank you for inviting me here today and I hope we are able to offer you some advice and insight into are what we feel are the important aspects of Bill C-4.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Tufts.
Before I go to honourable senators for discussion, I want to clarify a point at page 2 of your submission. You talked about the average working wage in Canada as $40,500. You used the year 2011 whereas the written submission is 2001. Can I assume that 2011 is the correct figure and not 2001?
Mr. Tufts: That was a typo. The intent was 2011.
The Chair: Can I also assume that you're talking about the private sector when you mention the working wage, or are you talking about a combination of private and public sector employees?
Mr. Tufts: That's from Stats Canada numbers, and it would include public and private sector employees. They do not break down —
The Chair: It's a combination. Thank you very much.
Senator Buth: I would like to thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
Ms. Collins, I am looking at your suggestions in terms of changes to the bill. With regard to clause 305 of the bill, you're suggesting that ``employer'' would be changed to ``deputy head.'' The way I read that clause is that ``employer'' is what's in the bill right now and there is no change to that. Are you suggesting an additional change?
Ms. Collins: Yes, I am.
Senator Buth: Okay, so based on your comments — and I think I understand why you're suggesting that change — you did offer to give us an example of how the process works in terms of the deputy head. And then I've got another question for you at the end of your example. Could you provide an example for us?
Ms. Collins: Yes. I'll use Transport Canada as the example, where we have a large number of our members who are essential, such as the civil aviation inspectors, rail, marine, et cetera. When it's outside the consultation process and no consultation at the level within the department, we end up with a lot of instances where there is non-agreement on what is essential.
That was the process we followed, and I'll use aircraft services. There were a number of positions, and all it took to resolve it all and come to an agreement of essential services was a meeting between the Director General of Aircraft Services, Mr. Gaudreau, and me. We resolved the issues and came up with an essential services agreement that then went back to Treasury Board and the representative from the Public Service Alliance of Canada for signatures. So instead of going with about 30 disputes, we were able to meet, discuss and resolve the issues there.
Through the labour relations officers at Transport Canada, when there were some issues with essential services, we were able to meet and very quickly come to an agreement on how to proceed. If that's removed — as it hasn't worked very well since we stopped from the bottom up, and then the disputes going to Treasury Board — once we stopped that process, it's much more difficult.
Why I am putting it back to the department heads is because where we can work collaboratively and in consultation, we can resolve the issues before there is disagreement or a dispute.
Senator Buth: When you're talking issues in terms of negotiating outside of the department, are you talking about outside the government or Treasury Board?
Ms. Collins: Yes, I am talking about Treasury Board, and PSAC is our bargaining agent.
I am not taking that role away, but what I am trying to put back is the initial process that works from the ground up that has Transport Canada and us — we've created a framework that worked very well for essential services with agreement at all levels of management, until it got to the deputy minister and myself. When we look at that process, there were relatively few disagreements that then had to go forward and be dealt with through Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Senator Buth: With your changes here — changing ``employer'' to ``deputy head'' — was that a process or was that enshrined in legislation prior to this bill?
Ms. Bramwell: Can I ask you to repeat the question?
Senator Buth: Well, you're asking for a change in the bill that's not being changed right now. So what we have right now is that the employer has the exclusive right to determine whether any service, et cetera, and this bill indicates that the word ``employer'' has been there before, so ``employer'' is not being changed.
So if you're asking us to consider putting ``deputy head'' in there, was ``deputy head'' in there in previous legislation, or is this a new change you're asking for?
The Chair: For clarification, clause 305 introduces a new section, 119. Section 119 that is here in this bill is new. It refers to the employer, but that hasn't been passed yet.
Senator Buth: But it's a replacement, chair.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Buth: It's a replacement to 119, and what typically happens is that the changes are underlined. So I am wondering if ``employer'' was in there —
The Chair: Your first question is: In existing law, is ``employer'' there?
Senator Buth: I am just following up in terms of whether this is something new.
Ms. Bramwell: These are changes that are very specific to the concerns that UCTE has, and we are in fact separate organizations. So I can give you the technical answer based on my understanding of the law. I have the prior section 119 in front of me, and it does say ``This Division applies to the employer and the bargaining agent . . . .''
I think the specific concern that UCTE has may be founded in the fact that in the new legislation, Bill C-4, references made occasionally — very specifically to the role of the deputy head, certainly with regard to the apportioning of expenses in the adjudication process — we see specific reference to the deputy head at certain points. I do not want to second-guess Ms. Collins, but it may be her concern that given those changes, the addition of that level of specificity with regard to the deputy head in certain instances, perhaps this will have an impact on the definition of ``employer'' that we see in section 119 in the way in which it may eventually be interpreted by a neutral third party.
Senator Buth: So there is no reason, though, that if it's listed as ``employer'' in here that it couldn't be the deputy head designated by Ms. Collins.
I understand you're trying to get quite specific here, but the word ``employer'' could mean the deputy head is the designated person as the employer.
Ms. Collins: It could, but that is not my understanding. The Treasury Board is the employer, and where a lot of things have been allotted to departmental essential services, the process changed from one of designations. The previous process was designations, and prior to every round of bargaining, there were consultations and there was agreement reached for the number of workers who were going to be designated during a period of strike.
That changed to essential services, and now the terminology used is that employees are designated as essential services. So the process changed. For the main, the consultation process is between the bargaining agent and the Treasury Board.
Where we would come in is if there are issues of dispute. What I am saying is that if we did it from the ground up, and then sent the disputes up further, that's a process that works for us, given the large number of essential services workers that we represent.
So I am referring to what was there prior to the change to essential services, and to go back to that.
Ms. Benson: Further to what Ms. Collins is saying, quite frankly what Bill C-4 does is that it will allow for no consultation. What Ms. Collins is saying is that we would like consultation, and we would like consultation at the deputy head level, whereas this new bill affords no consultation at all.
Mr. Clement did an interview not long ago. When asked, he said that we would be told when it became law how the process would work its way through.
So we're trying to ensure there is consultation. As a matter of fact, our process before was that if there was a disagreement, we went to an independent third party. That has been taken away from us as well, so we need to take everything in context.
The Chair: Ms. Collins, we heard from government that the reason for this change is that there were few agreements between the bargaining agent and the employer. My recollection is eight throughout the entire public service since this was introduced, and therefore they said that approach was a failure. But you've been telling us that approach was ideal. Could you help us with that?
Ms. Collins: I will try to help you, but then I would ask Ms. Benson to respond.
The employers that I work with — Transport Canada, the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Transportation Safety Board — have always worked very collaboratively in this manner. We have reached agreements at the departmental levels, rarely with disputes, but some disputes have gone forward.
With the Coast Guard, we came to an agreement that the fleet was essential, and then we looked at the sizing of the crew. It was very quick for us to come to that agreement so that when it got to the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Treasury Board, there were few disagreements between the employer and us in order to go forward. Those disagreements did go through the appeal process. I can only speak for the departments where we are the representing component: Transportation Safety Board, Canadian Transportation Agency, Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard.
Senator Buth: That was my question to Ms. Benson. I heard that there were only seven or eight essential services agreements signed; and that was part of the issue. The employer was having difficulty reaching these agreements in terms of essential services before the employees had a right to strike. Maybe you could comment on the essential services agreements and why there were issues in terms of not getting them signed.
Ms. Benson: I guess it depends on how you look at it in terms of issues in not getting them signed. Yes, we have signed several, but there are several outstanding, and we have collective agreements. You work on the essential services agreements and once you have a collective agreement, you kind of work on them, but it's no longer a priority for Treasury Board or for us.
It's not that we haven't always been able to come to a conclusion, but that we haven't always had to have a conclusion. Before we were ever able to go out on strike, we would have to have the essential services agreements in place. When we were on strike, for example in 2001 or 2004, we had our essential services agreements in place. Since then, we've had rounds of collective bargaining where we haven't been anywhere near a strike, so we haven't completed the essential services agreement.
For Treasury Board to say there was difficulty with that, perhaps they need to come to the table so that we can have the dialogue to conclude them.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification. We like to test information we have had previously, and that's what we are trying to do here.
Senator Callbeck: Both of you said that there was no consultation with government, so I'd like to ask: When did you find out about the changes? Was it when the bill was tabled?
Ms. Benson: In the Throne Speech there was an indication that there would be changes. The very next day I phoned Mr. Clement's office because he is the President of Treasury Board and I am the President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I had seen him the week before on another matter, and he had not mentioned anything. He did not take my call, but I spoke with his chief of staff who told me they didn't know what the changes would be, that they had to do work on it, that it doesn't happen just like that, and that he would try to arrange a meeting between Mr. Clement and me. Of course, I was quite surprised to hear about anything in the Throne Speech; and then the budget bill was tabled the following week.
There were many more phone calls, so we were afforded a briefing by the deputy minister with respect to the changes. There was no consultation and no forewarning. I had had a meeting with Mr. Clement the week before the Throne Speech. He was unable to meet with me after the Throne Speech. We've had one meeting since the tabling of Bill C-4, and I expressed my dismay.
Senator Callbeck: This has never happened before?
Ms. Benson: Never. You can go back into the 1970s, the 1990s or to 2003 and see that there has always been consultation. There was the Fryer report, the Finkelman report — before my time — and there was always consultation.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Collins?
Ms. Collins: I found out about it after the bill had been presented.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Collins, you say that many of your UCTE members have been designated essential for many years. What percentage is that, roughly?
Ms. Collins: Within the crews of Coast Guard ships, I would say that probably 60 per cent are essential. Within our technical inspector community at Transport Canada, it would be approximately 50 per cent. The Transportation Safety Board accident investigators have a high percentage of essential. We recognize that in the types of jobs they do, there is a need to protect the safety and security of the traveling public. They have always been designated more so than their counterparts in other departments.
Senator Callbeck: It's not going to be hard to reach that 80 per cent. Will you be going to arbitration?
Ms. Collins: Well, we would not go to arbitration because we are a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and I represent those groups within the broader membership. Our ship's crews are in the Operational Services Group, SV, table; and the table as a whole would be deemed essential or non-essential.
I am not sure if I was totally clear on that.
Senator Callbeck: No, that's fine.
I notice that you're only recommending one change. Are you settling for that because that's all you think you might get? Do you have concerns about the two boards that are being merged or about what the arbitrator has to look at, for example, government circumstances and so on?
Ms. Collins: I am very concerned about that, but I believe that it is the role of the National President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada to address those issues on behalf of all of the PSAC membership. The change that I am asking for is one that I believe is a minor change that would be workable in the process. I certainly believe that there needs to be an appeal process on essential services. On the bill, I have kept my remarks to the issue of essential services.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Benson, with the fact of this proposed legislation, the arbitrators will have to look at two things: first is Canada's fiscal circumstance. I wonder how you interpret that. It's possible, is not it, that one arbitrator will look at it one way and say, ``Well, there's a deficit here so nobody's getting a raise;'' or an arbitrator might look at it and say, ``Well, it's a small deficit and that's okay, give them a raise.'' I'd like to get your comments on how you feel about this.
Ms. Benson: I'll ask Ms. Bramwell to respond.
Ms. Bramwell: There are a few things I would like to point out with regard to the new factors that need to be considered by arbitrators. There are five factors under the current legislation. One of those was the state of the Canadian economy, so the need for fiscal responsibility, in a general sense, was already present.
It's important to look at the precise wording being brought into the new legislation. It's Canada's fiscal circumstances, but it's not just the state of the Canadian economy. The phrase goes on: ``Canada's fiscal circumstances relative to its stated budgetary policies,'' presumably, the stated budgetary policies of the government of the day. What this imports into an arbitrator's considerations are some very political concepts. It's a change that we feel is very unfortunate. It's one of two factors that now need to be taken into account.
The other factor also existed under the old legislation, and it was the ability for appropriate recruitment and retention of qualified public service staff. Several things that an arbitrator previously had to take into account have now been downgraded into possibilities for an arbitrator to take into account, where relevant. These include comparable classifications and occupations, and fairness and reasonableness, including fairness and reasonableness in comparison with the private sector.
Given some of the stated objectives of Bill C-4, we find these changes extremely puzzling.
Senator Callbeck: The other thing I wanted to ask you is about the two boards that are being combined, the Public Service Labour Relations Board, which in my understanding dealt with collective bargaining disputes, and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal, which dealt with complaints in relation to staffing and classification. They're going to be combined into one. Do you have concerns about that?
Ms. Benson: I'll start and Ms. Bramwell can finish.
We certainly have concerns because it's my understanding that you don't have to have any type of labour relations experience to now sit on those boards, so my assumption is that there will be appointments. If you don't have any prior experience, how will you ensure fairness is imparted?
Ms. Bramwell: That is our dominant concern with regard to the changes that the legislation brings in. Both of these boards had highly specialized expertise and were recognized, each in their own ways, as leaders in their fields. It seems to us very unfortunate to both lose the expertise and to combine them and reduce the overall number of people who will be sitting on those boards when they'll have a larger mandate than they did previously.
Senator Callbeck: Right.
Mr. Tufts, I have one question for you. I am looking at your solutions here, one of which suggests that we combine retirement income support programs for all Canadians into a plan that is fair, substantial and keeps seniors out of poverty. You are suggesting a guaranteed annual income, then, for all seniors, right?
Mr. Tufts: We would like to look at the replacement of current programs being paid for by governments across Canada. A mishmash of programs exists, including the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security and the $34 billion a year going into the Public Service Pension Plan. A lot of people collecting pensions are also eligible for CPP and Old Age Security. We point out that the average $38,000 pension being paid to a public sector employee, which is a fully qualified pension, as reported in the annual report from last year, was also eligible for Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security so that the retired public sector employee is retiring substantially earlier than the rest of Canadians, with a pension that's considerably more than the $24,000 median income for Canadians over the age of 65. Also, it happens to be larger than the average working wage. That has created parity.
One of the things that we should consider is the parity of unions across the country. There is not a big gap between union employees at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. I think what's happening here is that federal employees are trying to take leadership on this issue in saying, ``We're just one level of government, and there are serious fiscal problems with pensions across the country that are attacking cities and provinces as well.''
Getting back to that program, we think pensions have gotten away from what they were designed to be, and that is to keep seniors out of poverty. We know that the federal government has indicated that they made changes to the public employee pension system, but the changes made are not substantial enough. The only thing they changed was that new employees coming into the system will be retiring at the age of 65. That's not enough to bring the fiscal challenges back in line with these pensions, so we're suggesting a return to the original purpose of pensions — keeping seniors out of poverty — and look at a whole realignment and sort of a supplementary issue to what we're obviously speaking about today.
Yes, we would recommend having a guaranteed minimum income solution and allowing Canadians to develop programs and create their own retirement security rather than the two-tiered system we have today, where, for Canadians in the public sector, the deposits into their pension plans are $34 billion. That's only 20 per cent of the workforce. The other 65 per cent of the workforce of Canadians are relying on RRSPs and are not collecting the same $34 billion. We see there is a huge fiscal imbalance here. If you project those numbers to 2030 — and we're just on the cusp of that demographic tsunami — the costs going into CPP, Old Age Security and public sector pensions are going to squeeze everything out of the economy that we hold dear and close to our hearts. We think there needs to be a complete re-evaluation of the system. Bill C-4 is a start towards that as we begin to look at the fiscal realities of the employment of government employees. We're hoping that's what this bill is about and that it will start a trend towards that.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I have two questions; one is for Mr. Tufts and the other for Ms. Collins. Mr. Tufts, I could ask you many things because the changes you are proposing to the retirement income security system are quite significant.
However, my question deals with the bill before us, Bill C-4. Could you tell me how you feel about divisions 17 and 18 of the bill? What do you have to say about them? Do you think that those changes are in keeping with your proposals? How do you feel about Divisions 17 and 18, since the bill does not have much on pension plans, with the exception of the changes to the administration of the Canada Pension Plan?
[English]
Mr. Tufts: One of the interesting points presented by the representatives of the unions is that a whole lot of details haven't been written into this bill. I think it's a broad swipe at a whole bunch of issues, considering it's a bill is 322 pages long. The section that we're dealing with here today is barely two pages in length, and I am sure there is going to have to be a whole lot more discussion about these issues in order to get a feel for where the overall direction is going. I think the federal government has been frustrated that they haven't been able to bring any fiscal changes into the process.
We are hearing from a lot of Canadians across the country. There is a huge gap between the private and public sectors and steps need to be taken. The current process we have used for 50 years hasn't worked and the government is getting serious about looking into options where they can bring more leverage to the current situation. I think their main concern is with fiscal responsibility and finding ways of bringing that back into line with the economic circumstances and realities of today.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: My question for Ms. Benson is on another issue.
Ms. Collins is proposing specific amendments to the bill. However, Ms. Benson, your presentation basically comes down to removing Divisions 17 and 18 from the bill. In other words, you are not proposing amendments, other than removing the two divisions of Bill C-4.
Between the two, there are many nuances. I will ask you a question again that might have been implicit in other questions; if Divisions 17 and 18 were not excluded from the bill, would you have any suggestions to improve the bill as you see it?
[English]
Ms. Benson: No, I wouldn't because I believe the whole system is flawed in terms of the process.
We're not the only bargaining agent. I'm not sure whether you will hear from other unions, but I understand that you got a submission from the Association of Justice Counsel.
Because there was no consultation, from our perspective, if they want to modernize — which is what Mr. Clement said — the way to do that is to have the discussion and put us under the Canada Labour Code, which is not what he is proposing to do.
The proposal you have in front of you for Divisions 17 and 18 is fundamentally flawed in our opinion and we would like to have it removed. We didn't look to having amendments to put forward.
Senator Eaton: My question is very much along the lines of the other senators. I notice in the bill that it said the employer still has the last right to declare what and who is an essential service. Am I right on that?
Ms. Bramwell: So you're saying this is a change imported from the existing PSLRA into Bill C-4?
Senator Eaton: The bill is cutting out consultation, as you say, but basically the end result is that the employer still has the right to say what is essential and not?
Ms. Benson: As I understand it, they now have the unfettered right to decide who is essential and who is not. In the past, as Ms. Collins has indicated, we were able to have conversations at the deputy head level and above and below depending on the circumstances, and if we had a dispute, we took it to an independent third party.
We've looked at the job descriptions. In the example that Mr. Clement gave on the radio, he would deem all customs officers essential. Well, that's not necessarily the case because we don't believe, and in past legislation it came to bear, that collecting duty is an essential duty of a customs officer. Collecting duty has nothing to do with the safety and security of the country.
When we were going through this last process with our customs officers, who were in the process of voting on a tentative agreement we reached with Treasury Board, not all of them were going to be deemed essential should we ever have come to a labour dispute.
Senator Eaton: Thank you for the description.
Do customs officer not open suitcases and collect duty and ensure people are not bringing in bombs or unattractive items?
Ms. Benson: Don't misunderstand me, please. They make sure our borders are safe. A discussion I had with Mr. Clement a number of weeks ago was about the importance of our customs officers and that when, in a study, Treasury Board likened them to the screeners at an airport, that was totally disrespectful. So I'm not saying by any stretch of the imagination that the work customs officers do is not vitally important. But their essential duty, if you want to look at it from the perspective of what's deemed to be essential in the case of a labour dispute for the safety and security of the country, is not to collect duty.
Senator Eaton: I would ask you this other question because I can understand your rage. Basically he has cut you out of the equation and is making the decision. I would like to think, though, that the people who work for him would be smart enough to sit down and have a conversation with you. I guess I'm optimistic. I would hate to think that somebody would go out of their way to antagonize a very essential other half of the equation.
That said, I would also say that Mr. Clement probably feels he's accountable to the voter and you are not. So he takes responsibility and if there are lineups at borders and people are getting through because they have not been named an essential service, he will bear the Canadian wrath. Is that not true?
Ms. Benson: I appreciate what you are saying and you mentioned that you would like to think they would have discussions with us. Well, we sit here today with sweeping changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act with no discussion with us and not even a hit that this was taking place, so I'm not as confident as you are.
On Tuesday, Mr. Stroud from Unifor made a presentation and talked about the Coast Guard and the position that he holds, how many are deemed essential and that they almost all were. And yet the positions have been cut. So if you were deemed essential, why is it that this government — Treasury Board — actually cuts your positions? How essential are you then?
For us, we are very suspect in that they will make sweeping essential services agreements with no consultation — as they have made these changes with no consultation — and put them in a budget bill so they can fast-track them.
Senator Eaton: I hope for all of our sakes you're proven wrong.
Ms. Benson: I hope so, too.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Welcome, ladies. Welcome, Mr. Tufts. Thank you for being here today.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada has a section on fees. It says that there are fees if you are a unionized employee, but not if you are a non-unionized employee.
I asked the employer and got no answer that would allow me to assess the nature of those fees. You probably know better how much it costs employees to go to adjudication. Are we talking about hundreds or thousands of dollars?
We are told that the chair determines the fees and sends the invoice, but have you yourself made an impact study? Do you have any idea how much that will cost?
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: We're starting to look at what the costs of the new legislation might be. Perhaps it might be helpful if I set the context by explaining how the system works.
Currently, whether you're represented by a bargaining agent or not, you may have a grievance with regard to your terms and conditions of employment. If that grievance can be referred to adjudication subject to criteria under the law that are somewhat restrictive, then you may present your grievance to the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
If you are represented by a bargaining agent they bear the costs of representing you or having somebody present who speaks on your behalf. If you are not represented by a bargaining agent, you may speak on your own behalf and appear unrepresented or hire a lawyer to do that speaking for you. But the cost of the mediator or the adjudicator in front of whom you appear and the cost of presenting the paperwork of your grievance to the Public Service Labour Relations Board, all of these costs are carried by the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
We would love to cost out with some specificity what the new costs of adjudication for us will be. This act indicates a couple of things. First of all, where an individual is unionized, their union, jointly with the employer, will bear the cost of going to adjudication.
Unfortunately, the act does not specify what is meant by ``adjudication.'' Is it the moment at which you appear in front of an adjudicator, something that happens in a fraction of the cases? Is it the moment when you go to a mediator, something that happens in far more of the cases? Is it the moment when you file your papers with the Public Service Labour Relations Board, something which obviously happens in every case? We do not know because the act doesn't explain it to us.
Furthermore, the bill provides that when your grievance is in respect of a human rights matter, because this act removes the right for you to have a complaint go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission if you are a federal public service worker, then your costs will be borne by the board, similar to the way that they would have been borne by the commission and the tribunal in the past in terms of that decision-maker. You still have to provide for your own counsel.
So that's true for all employees; namely, that where a human rights grievance is filed, neither a unionized employee nor a non-unionized employee has to pay the costs of their adjudication.
The problem from our point of view, in terms of simply doing a cost analysis of what that means, is that there are a great many grievances where we see a mixture of collective agreement issues and human rights issues. They rarely display discreetly or uniquely; human rights issues often arise in respect to the application of some article of the collective agreement. Given that reality, we're curious as to how exactly the cost structure outlined in the bill will be applied.
The bill seems to suppose that there is this clear distinction between a human rights grievance and all other grievances, when in fact we see termination grievances that are human rights grievances and we see grievances regarding interpretations of the terms and conditions of employment that are human rights grievances.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That gives me more information, but it does not tell me whether the union member or the union will be paying the fees.
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: In instances where a unionized worker presents a grievance that's not related to human rights issues, the union — that is, the members, because a union can only raise revenues through the dues paid by its members — the members will pay the costs of going to adjudication. Unionized public service workers will now themselves pay the cost of going to adjudication, whereas if you are not unionized — to put it in very simple terms — the government will pick up the tab for you.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I think it's a human rights issue because an employee is an employee.
[Translation]
Do you think that this discriminatory measure, which does not really encourage anyone to be part of a union, will affect the rate of union membership?
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: It's one of our areas of concern with regard to the act. There is no question that certainly discriminates against union members.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Right now, if a unionized worker and a non-unionized worker are at the same level in a position, do they have the same compensation, the same holidays, leave, wages and benefits?
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: If I can just make a technical precision: It would not be possible for them to have the same classification, because bargaining units follow the occupational groups in the federal public service. You might have an employee who was excluded from a bargaining unit by reason of confidentiality or managerial duties, but at classification, you would not have some employees in one classification be unionized and others in another classification not unionized.
You certainly could have employees in similar situations, it would be fair to say, who performed somewhat similar duties, and one might be able to proceed under circumstances where another might not be.
The inequities built into current bill are going to be problematic down the road.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: In one amendment, employees can no longer represent themselves and must be represented by an agent. Is that a good thing for all the workers in the unit? What is the advantage of having no way of representing yourself, with the exception of human rights issues?
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: Under the existing regime, if your grievance concerns terms and conditions negotiated by your bargaining unit, you do require the bargaining unit's support.
What has been lost for unionized employees is the ability to bring a grievance forward concerning your dismissal or discipline without the bargaining agent's support.
Obviously, for individual public service workers who have very different rights from workers in the federal private sector, they do not have the right to negotiate their classification or their staffing. This is just another loss for them.
It has long been the position of the Public Service Alliance of Canada that — and this was discussed in the fall, both when the Public Service Modernization Act and the extensive consultations that were part of the lead-up to the Public Service Modernization Act, and also in our input provided to the prior report to that — public service workers should properly be covered by the Canada Labour Code.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I find that very difficult, because whenever an organization is discussed, we see acronyms like LRTIRT and CHRA. I do not understand that in either English or French. When we talk about the Labour Relations Board, we are told that the chair is independent and appointed by the government. Then the vice-chairs and the members are appointed by the union, on the one hand, and by the government, on the other hand. Do you agree with that requirement of the legislation?
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: I'm sorry. I'm not sure that I understand the question.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: In terms of the board members that will sit on the new labour relations board, we are told that the chair will be appointed by the government, but that the vice-chairs and the other members will be appointed by the employer and the union in turn until all the members are appointed.
Do you find that acceptable?
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: The requirement for board members appointed to the board to reflect nominations, on the one hand, of the employer and then of the bargaining agent is a feature of the existing Public Service Labour Relations Act, and it has served the board well over the years. The chair is currently a Privy Council nominee, and that is the way the board has functioned for decades.
Now, that does not represent a substantial change. The change, which I believe Ms. Benson has already highlighted, is that there is now no longer a requirement for expertise in labour relations, and that is a great concern to us.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: When you appoint your members, will you require them to have a knowledge of labour relations?
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: We have never recommended the appointment of anybody except someone who has expertise. The same has been the case from the employer's side because it's a requirement of the legislation.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: How do you explain that change, when people who have no expertise in the area can be members apparently? There are not a lot of people.
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: Well, a very simple person might say that although it might not change the people nominated from the union side — because I think we will continue to nominate as we always have — it would certainly open the latitude on the employer's side for appointments that may reflect other concerns than the need to have qualified people on the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: My last question has to do with the elimination of an organization that provides statistics and data that enable the board members and arbitrators to rely on objective data. Do you think that data can be found somewhere else?
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: The situation of public service workers is somewhat unique. We heard today, and you will hear again, discussions of comparison with an average Canadian wage. Public service workers do not perform average Canadian jobs by and large; there are several things that distinguish them from other workers. Almost to a person, they have security clearance requirements that are fairly stringent, even at the most minimal level, and often are much stronger than that. The need for a sophisticated analysis with regard to the work they do really makes the nature of their payment and salary accountable to the Canadian public and was appropriate and reflected in the compensation and analysis research services, which were previously mandated by the legislation for the board to provide.
Senator Seth: Thank you for giving such information, and yet the problem remains.
My question is for Ms. Benson. As you mentioned, there was very little consultation in writing the provisions for this bill. Suppose you had been sitting at the table and had been asked what you would have added to this bill. What would have been your suggestion? How would you like to have this bill?
Ms. Benson: First of all, we wouldn't put any changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act in a budget bill because, obviously, it makes it very difficult for amendments per se. We would have wanted to consult with respect to the labour relations act, similar to what we have had in the past.
Mr. Clement has gone on record saying that he wants to modernize the public service, and we have agreed. We said we would go under the Canada Labour Code or legislation of that nature. We believe that if you remove Divisions 17 and 18, then we will have the opportunity to have consultation with all the unions, stakeholders and academics and move forward.
Senator Seth: Did you try this?
Ms. Benson: I spoke to Mr. Clement about consultation. He was very clear that he had no desire to consult with the unions. He was very clear that he wanted these changes before 2014, when we will enter into collective bargaining.
PSAC and over 100,000 of our members will be in collective bargaining in the summer of 2014. He was very clear with that to the point where Mr. Clement tweeted that I asked for co-governance; and I certainly did not ask for co- governance. I asked for meaningful consultation and I asked him to be more respectful of his employees, my members.
Senator Seth: What do you think the damages will be?
Ms. Benson: Our membership is very disappointed with this particular President of Treasury Board. They go into work every day and perform services for Canadians because they are proud of the work they do, and they work very hard for Canadians. That's not what they feel this particular President of Treasury Board is imparting to the Canadian public when he stands outside, does a media scrum and talks about sick leave and surfing the net.
For us, there will be some pretty turbulent times because our membership wants to be treated with dignity and respect. They want to be acknowledged for the work they do for Canadians. Closing Veterans Affairs offices is not acknowledging the work they do for Canadians.
The Chair: Following from Senator Seth's question, are there other areas of the bill you want to comment on?
Ms. Bramwell: There are several areas that I could comment on, and many are contained in our brief. We have been careful to outline that for senators.
If I may comment on one other aspect of the proposed legislation that will have a tremendous impact on us: the loss of the choice of dispute resolution mechanism that existed previously for public service workers and was part of the careful balance that exists in the Public Service Labour Relations Act, given that as matters currently stand, there are several areas that would normally be collectively bargained during negotiations that simply cannot be bargained by our members.
Previously, any public service bargaining unit had the ability to choose whether they would have conciliation/strike as their dispute resolution mechanism or arbitration. This choice has now been lost, and we feel that that is profoundly unfortunate.
I want to make it clear that the facts show that it's been rare that it was necessary to resort entirely to arbitration to settle a collective agreement or certainly even rarer to resort to a strike. The ability of the bargaining agent to choose the appropriate method of dispute resolution has in fact been one of the great contributing factors to the positive state of labour relations in the federal public service and to federal public service labour relations peace.
The fact that it has been removed, especially removed without consultation with the bargaining agents and removed when the five-year review of the PSMA, which took place less than three years ago, made no recommendations whatsoever in that respect, is completely baffling to us.
The Chair: Ms. Collins, do you have any comments.
Ms. Collins: I would like to comment on the amendments to Part II of the Canada Labour Code and the definition of ``refusal to work'' that change the definition to that of ``imminent danger.'' This has basically wiped out the labour officers who would come in and make that determination and gives the responsibility and the authority to the minister or her designate. Again, there is no definition of having an understanding of health and safety issues, of dangerous situations or of imminent danger. For example, does that light have to be hanging above my head to be an imminent danger or is it not imminent because it's slightly off so chances are it might miss me? That would be one of the questions. When someone works in an area with asbestos for a long period of time, it is not imminent danger but is certainly chronic danger.
We're all very concerned about that serious change.
Ms. Benson: If I could add to what Ms. Collins was saying about Part II of the Canada Labour Code and the changes, once again I have to emphasize that, in the past, any changes to health and safety provisions have always been the subject of consultation; and, once again, there has been no consultation.
The Chair: Mr. Tufts, do you have any comment? Are you still with us?
Mr. Tufts: I think it's a very serious issue that is being addressed today. It's interesting to see the insights into what will be brought about by Bill C-4. It sounds like 2014 promises to be a turbulent year as the unions feel threatened by any movement towards what we would consider fairness, equity and parity with the private sector.
We've heard that the bill will lock up the courts for a significant period of time. We've heard that there are going to be human rights cases proceeded with and that there is going to be a lot of union action that takes place. On Tuesday, in the Finance Committee of the House of Commons, there were threats of a lot of strike action in 2014.
If we look back at what has happened over the last 50 years or so in the labour movement in Canada, there are a lot of very positive things that the labour movement has brought to Canada. My mother was a federal employee and is a retiree currently. She spent her career with the federal public sector.
The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but the question was: Were there any other sections or divisions of the act, other than what you've already spoken on, that you wanted to bring to our attention? In particular, there has been discussion about the Canada Labour Code.
Mr. Tufts: There is not. I think there is a very limited amount of information in there. It's obvious that the arbitration process needs to be revamped and revised. It's not currently working for Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Will the amendments proposed in Bill C-4 bring the federal public service processes in line with the provincial processes or not? Will the changes move our procedures further from or closer to the provincial public services?
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: These changes take what we would have described as a regressive labour relations scheme, one in which employees had fewer rights than they do in most labour relations jurisdictions in Canada, and make it even more regressive. I think people would say that the most regressive labour relations law, with regard to essential services, now exists in Saskatchewan and will shortly be the subject of a hearing in front of the Supreme Court of Canada. This law is more regressive.
Senator Bellemare: Than Saskatchewan?
Ms. Bramwell: Yes. This does not bring federal public service workers in line with some national average. It takes people who had not much in the way of labour rights and gives them less.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: So my understanding is that negotiations in the provincial public services have different rules, which give more rights to employees than Bill C-4?
[English]
Ms. Bramwell: We're speaking very broadly now. Often what you will see in provincial labour relations schemes is that certain essential services workers are carved out, and there may be special labour relations regimes that apply, for example, to policing or to hospital workers.
Speaking with a broad brush in terms of rights for workers, this is one of the most restrictive schemes among Canadian jurisdictions, and now it is even more restrictive.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: My question is in the same vein. Many years ago I was working with the Department of Labour in Quebec, and we reformed the Occupational Health and Safety Act. When we talk about safety, a life is a life. It doesn't matter if you are federal, provincial or municipal. When there is a danger, it should be the same, as far as I am concerned. We know, in the case of some dangers to pregnant women, that they have the possibility of leaving earlier, but I was wondering: With this new regime, do you think this will have the effect of giving more protection to workers or at least equal protection to what they get at the provincial or municipal levels?
Ms. Benson: I apologize because I do not have our subject matter expert on Division 5 here with me today, but my understanding, through discussions with them, is that our members will have fewer rights. Our members will be in more danger because they will not be able to refuse based on what this definition will be.
I think Ms. Collins said it very well when she talked about imminent danger. Will there have to be bullets going over the heads of our park wardens or our border service officers before that's imminent danger, or will we look at the asbestos? I just lost a very dear friend of mine from Saskatchewan, a federal government worker, who was exposed to asbestos 20 years ago. He was a meat inspector and there was asbestos in the plants he worked in. He succumbed to it last year, and the Saskatchewan government has just passed Howard's Law about listing the buildings that have asbestos so that you're well aware of what you're going into and have the right to refuse. You wouldn't have outlined in this bill quite that same right any longer.
For us, there is concern about the reproductive system of both men and women with respect to the danger that they could be exposed to and about the lack of a right to refuse because of imminent danger.
I summed it up, but we do have experts on this. If you require more information, we certainly can provide it. I think we sent a brief on Division 5 already.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I think it's important that we know more about this because, of course, we bear a responsibility, too, to protect employees. It's not something that I take lightly. We need to make sure of even the process to save the person, because the assessment of danger is a process. Of course, doctors and other specialists can assess the kind of danger, if it's imminent or not.
I was tempted to tell you that anybody working for the federal government and going over the Champlain Bridge is probably in imminent danger. I am just joking, but that's just to say that sometimes we can assess, and it's quite clear and evident. There are also some grey zones, but that's where it's important to have the proper mechanisms to take care of that. I'd like to be reassured that the changes in there are not putting our employees at risk.
Ms. Benson: It's my understanding that the changes contained in Division 5 are certainly putting employees at risk. They most definitely are, and we will send you the brief that we presented.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Thank you. It's important.
The Chair: We will be hearing from the committee that actually studied Division 5. That was the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, and they have prepared a report on what they heard. That report has been filed, and on Tuesday afternoon of next week we will be talking to the chair and deputy chair of that committee. I just wanted to put your mind at ease on that. Although this committee hasn't initially gone through all of the sections and divisions, we will be talking to the other committees of the Senate that have looked at those other divisions.
Ms. Benson: I thank you for that, but I think I would feel a great sense of relief if I were able to send the brief to you myself.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Ms. Benson: Because my understanding, from Mr. Bob Kingston, who is actually the co-chair of the government- wide health and safety committee and from a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, has indicated to me that some of the facts and figures were not quite accurate, so he has sent letters with some amended facts.
The Chair: If you could get that information to us before next Tuesday afternoon, that would be very helpful to honourable senators.
Ms. Collins, did you have anything further that you wanted to submit to us? We would be pleased to hear from you as well.
Ms. Collins: I would just like to add a couple of comments on the refusal to work, the changes and the impact. Many of our UCTE members work in areas that are more at risk, certainly the search and rescue members whose job it is to go out and rescue or do search and recovery. There are many who board a lot of different vessels when doing their inspections; they do have asbestos, et cetera. The removal of the right to refuse and the removal of the safety officers coming in and making determinations is one that puts our members at greater risk.
The other factor I don't think anyone has looked at is that this change to Part II of the Canada Labour Code goes well beyond federal public sector workers. It goes to everyone that's covered who is federally legislated, for example, in the private sector, our airport workers.
I will tell you that we've had a few deaths on the job. We've had some serious injuries. As a matter of fact, two weeks ago there was an explosion and we had a member who was seriously injured and burned. Should they have raised a concern and wanted to refuse to work, to think that they would have first had to prove that the danger was imminent is of great concern, and I believe it puts workers at risk of potential injury and ultimately to potential death.
So I am asking that when you get to looking at this, you really look at the implications of taking away the experts, the safety officers, and the change in the definition and what it actually means.
The Chair: And that's the definition of ``danger.'' The right to refuse if there is a danger hasn't been removed, but the definition of ``danger'' has been changed. Is that correct?
Ms. Benson: That's right.
The Chair: Mr. Tufts, we'd like to thank you for being here with us today. It's a little lonely in that office I can see, but we appreciate you appearing on behalf of Fair Pensions for All.
Ms. Collins, from the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, and Ms. Benson and Ms. Bramwell, from the Public Service Alliance of Canada's, thank you for helping clarify some of these issues for us.
(The committee adjourned.)