Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 78 - Evidence - October 31, 2018 (evening meeting)
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 31, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts, met this day at 6:45 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee. I wish to welcome all those who are with us in the room and viewers across the country who may be watching on television or online. As a reminder to those watching, the committee hearings are open to the public and are available online and sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
I now invite the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Toronto.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Diane Bellemare from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
The Chair: I would also like to recognize the clerk of the committee, Gaëtane Lemay, and our two analysts, Alex Smith and Shaowei Pu, who team up to support the work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
This evening, honourable senators, we continue our consideration of Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts, referred to the committee by the Senate of Canada on October 16, 2018.
[Translation]
Joining us this evening are two federal organizations. We welcome Marc Thibodeau, Director General, Labour Relations and Compensation, Canada Border Services Agency.
[English]
From Correctional Service Canada, we have Nick Fabiano, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Human Resources Management.
[Translation]
The clerk has informed me that Mr. Thibodeau will give a short presentation and will be followed by Mr. Fabiano.
Mr. Thibodeau, the floor is yours.
Marc Thibodeau, Director General, Labour Relations and Compensation, Canada Border Services Agency: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency for your deliberations on Bill C-62 and would like to thank you for the invitation.
As the committee is aware, Bill C-62 brings together the previous Bill C-5, regarding sick leave provisions in the public service, and Bill C-34, which concerns collective bargaining and essential services. The focus of my remarks will be on this last component, essential services, as it relates to the CBSA.
The CBSA’s dual mandate of upholding national security while facilitating the entry of people and goods at the border means that it must retain numerous employees in positions designated as essential. Our operations are vast, and to give you a sense of the magnitude of this responsibility, allow me to illustrate further.
[English]
The agency employs approximately 14,000 individuals who provide service at over 1,100 locations across Canada and abroad. We have both uniform and non-uniform staff who ensure that border operations run smoothly 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Each year, the CBSA will process over 93 million travellers who come to Canada by rail, land, marine or air. Our officers will perform over 17 million commercial releases, impact 780,000 courier shipments, conduct over 89,000 commercial examinations, seize $400 million in drugs, and collect $35 billion in duties and taxes owed to the Crown.
The agency has an important role in protecting the safety and security of Canadians. For example, Border Services officers increasingly intercept highly toxic substances such as fentanyl and fentanyl analogues in the postal and air cargo courier streams. Since 2016 the agency made 287 seizures totally 42 kilograms most often smuggled to Canada in legitimate shipments.
[Translation]
The current Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act defines anessential service as “any service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada deemed essential because it is, or will be, necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public.”
Essential services and the agreements that govern them are determined by the CBSA and the bargaining agent, and are in line with the CBSA’s legislated mandate under the Canada Border Services Agency Act. These positions are critical for the effective management of the CBSA’s operations and to ensuring public safety and security. This is why approximately 75 per cent, or 7,700 of all positions designated as essential at the CBSA, fall within the FB classification, and 95 per cent of all designated essential positions are on the front line. The remaining 5 per cent of the positions fall within other classifications that are required to support our front-line officers in their duties.
[English]
Historically, the number and percentage of essential services positions in the CBSA workforce has remained relatively stable since the agency was created in 2003. Since that time, the level of essential services remained at approximately 75 to 80 per cent of the FB population.
Essential services are central to the agency’s mandate and operational context. The CBSA welcomes the steps being taken to bring clarity to the process.
This concludes my remarks and I’d be happy to answer questions the committee may have.
Nick Fabiano, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Human Resources Management, Correctional Service Canada: Thank you to the honourable members of this committee for having me here today to appear on behalf Correctional Service Canada. I’m happy to speak on the committee study of Bill C-62.
I hope to provide insight into the Correctional Service Canada workforce in our labour relations regime and answer your questions.
To provide a brief overview of CSC’s mandate, it is in administering the sentences of offenders incarcerated for two years or more. The CSC plays a key role in ensuring that Canadian communities are protected. Our organization is responsible for managing institutions of various security levels and supervising offenders under conditional release. In keeping our communities safe, the CSC oversees appropriate custodial measures and provides effective rehabilitation to people serving a federal sentence. The CSC also plays a critical role in supporting offenders in their safe and successful reintegration into the community.
In order to successfully achieve our mandate we operate one of the largest departments in the public service, the CSC manages 43 institutions, 92 parole offices, 14 community correctional centres and has over 18,000 staff members working within these institutions and parole offices.
The Correctional Service of Canada is committed to creating and retaining a diverse workforce that is representative of Canadian society. Our organization has made targeted efforts to recruit and retain Indigenous employees. As a result, the CSC is the largest employer of Indigenous people in the core public administration with 10.2 per cent of CSC staff identifying as Indigenous.
Our workforce also spans across a number of occupational groups and positions. Our front line staff includes correctional, program and parole officers, primary workers, Aboriginal liaison and development officers. We also employ health professionals as members of front-line staff including nurses and psychology staff.
Two occupational groups represent over half of all the staff employed in the operational units. Those groups are the correctional officers, or CX group, and the Welfare Programs category, which is primarily comprised of parole and correctional program officers working in communities and CSC institutions.We also employ staff performing corporate and administrative functions in each region, as well as here in Ottawa.
The hard work and dedication of our staff members across the country is fundamental to fulfilling our mandate in achieving positive correctional outcomes. Ensuring CSC’s workplace is respectful and supportive of these staff members is crucial to our success. In terms of labour management relationships, the Correctional Service Canada is committed to constructively engaging with labour partners, as we recognize that consultation and exchange of information, ideas and views support informed decision-making and collaborative problem solving. Working cooperatively with bargaining agents further assists in safeguarding a healthy, safe, productive and respectful working environment.
In terms of collective bargaining, most bargaining units present within the Correctional Service Canada have filed notice to bargain and most collective bargaining agreements have expired.
Although officials of the Treasury Board Secretariat, the administrative arm of the Treasury Board, are mandated to negotiate collective agreements on behalf of the Treasury Board, CSC provides direct support to such collective bargaining activities.
With respect to Bill C-62 and its impact on Correctional Service Canada, as you know, this legislation would restore the previous public service labour relations regime that existed prior to the coming into force of certain budget implementation acts, including measures relative to essential services and the choice of collective bargaining dispute resolution methods. Importantly, Bill C-62’s amends the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act so that the employer no longer has the exclusive right to determine which services are essential for the safety and security of the public.At CSC most of our positions which operate out of our institutions and community offices will continue to meet the definition of essential service, as they are necessary for the safety and security of the public.
The passage of Bill C-62 would therefore support the return to the former negotiation approach in determining CSC’s essential services profile and require review of such designated positions, in recognition of the need to promote a balance between active union involvement and manageable operational risk.
The Correctional Service Canada will continue to ensure that the safety and security of communities, offenders and staff by working with public sector bargaining agents to designate positions as essential in order to avoid the discontinuation of services during a strike.
Bill C-62 also provides that the bargaining agents represented within the Correctional Service Canada workforce would be given the choice to determine which dispute resolution process they wish to use should parties reach an impasse in bargaining. Bargaining agents active in CSC have historically selected conciliation as a dispute resolution method even where 100 per cent of the positions are deemed essential within the bargaining units. Should Bill C-62 come into force we expect the bargaining agents would maintain their historical dispute resolution method choice of conciliation.
I conclude by emphasizing how thankful the Correctional Service Canada is to the valuable contribution of labour force within our correction facilitates, in the community and regional and national offices. A strong and professional workforce, together with a workforce which fosters its growth and well-being, helps CSC fulfil its mandate and contributes to the public safety of Canada.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today and I welcome your questions.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much for being here tonight. I will start with Mr. Fabiano.
You said in your opening remarks that most bargaining units filed notice and then you said most of our positions continue to meet the definition of essential service. Then later on you said that you’re going to continue to work with public sector bargaining agents to designate positions as essential. It makes it sound like positions have not been designated yet as essential. Are positions designated as essential now?
Mr. Fabiano: We have positions that are designated essential, but part of the process is to negotiate with our union partners to determine which ones we agree to be essential. For example, we’ve already done that with our correctional officers and there is an agreement that all of our correctional officers are designated essential.
I think there is still debate with some of the other edge positions. For example, the positions in support services. To what degree do all or some of them require to be deemed essential.
Senator Marshall: How were they selected? Was that as a result of negotiations with the employer? How was that decision made as to who is essential?
Mr. Fabiano: Historically we have reviewed the definition of what would be deemed essential, and we would make our initial review of it and present our initial category of what we believe to be essential employees.
Senator Marshall: So is that done during every collective bargaining cycle or you designate and then it will stay in place for several cycles?
Mr. Fabiano: I believe the negotiation happens every cycle. I think we start from the same category we have.
Senator Marshall: Same premise? Okay.
Mr. Fabiano: Given the change in legislation, we are negotiating those too, so we are starting from a new cycle right now.
Senator Marshall: Sick leave is also covered. What information do you keep on employees with regard to sick leave? Is it done by Treasury Board or by your own organization?
Mr. Fabiano: A little bit by both. We have an internal system where we track sick leave usage, to determine pay and their benefits and to monitor accounts of sick leave.
A lot of that data is also provided to Treasury Board. Maybe less specific. I have information and data for employee X whereas Treasury Board has overall data from my organization about how many employees and which sectors.
Senator Marshall: What would it be like high-level information as to extent of sick leave usage, et cetera? So Treasury Board does not get involved with the management; that’s left up to your organization. Based on information you provide to Treasury Board, does Treasury Board come back looking for additional information or express concerns about something that they see in your high-level information?
Mr. Fabiano: They could and they have questioned high usage in certain categories of employees. They may ask what we are doing to manage that. They don’t get involved in the day-to-day management of individual sick leave.
Senator Marshall: That’s left entirely up to yourself. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Thibodeau, could you tell us where you are with the designation of essential employees?
Mr. Thibodeau: Thank you very much. We are currently in discussions with all of our bargaining agents. We have initiated discussions with groups represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, with a view of updating the essential services agreements for the groups that are in bargaining. As Mr. Fabiano indicated, it’s the same thing for us as well. Most of our groups are in collective bargaining at this point in time.
Senator Marshall: Is it done on the basis of consensus, because at some point at some point there must be a disagreement with regard to who will be designated as essential.
Mr. Thibodeau: The current rules that were shared with us by the Treasury Board were to engage in consultation with the bargaining agents to establish those, and that’s what we’ve done in the last round of bargaining, for example, with the Border Services officers and our bargaining agents.
Senator Marshall: Is it done by consensus? Is there ever a dispute with regard to the numbers or the types of position that are designated as essential?
Mr. Thibodeau: It was negotiated in the last round of bargaining.
Senator Marshall: By consensus?
Mr. Thibodeau: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Would sick leave be the same as Mr. Fabiano described that you are totally responsible for sick leave and Treasury Board is an overseer?
Mr. Thibodeau: That’s correct. The administration of the provision of the collective agreement is left with departments, so we administer leave for each individual and then we report annually to the board on this.
Senator Marshall: One of the issues we discussed today and what you hear from outside government is this instance of people who are at the end of their careers, in their last year, when many take a year’s sick leave before they move into retirement. Is that an issue in your organization?
Mr. Thibodeau: It’s not an issue in our organization. We monitor each case, especially the ones that are going into a long-term situation from a benefit perspective and also from wellness. Also, as we get older we typically take a bit more leave because our health is more fragile. Unfortunately, some individuals as they get older are struck by severe illnesses and they take more leave. But would I say that at the agency we have an issue with individuals taking long periods just before they retire? If that was the case, we would monitor and make sure it’s appropriate.
Senator Marshall: What is the involvement of Treasury Board? You provide certain information to Treasury Board. Is that where it stops or are they looking at it across the board with regard to all the organizations, say, for example, with regard to the usage of sick leave when people are about to retire?
Mr. Thibodeau: I wouldn’t be able to speculate in terms of what the board does these days with the information, but I know that when we were involved in the negotiations round, they had information in relation to our population and what the usage was.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: I would like to continue along the lines of Senator Marshall’s questions. The passage of the current legislation in 2013 allowed employers to unilaterally determine essential services. Is that what you did in your institutions? In other words, did you determine that you were no longer required to negotiate on essential services and that you could prepare your own list? Or despite everything, did you continue to negotiate and try to come to an agreement with the union?
Mr. Thibodeau: Is the question for me?
Senator Pratte: It’s for both of you.
Mr. Thibodeau: As an example, I can mention the border services agents group. Discussions were held and a lot of progress was made before the act was passed. The lists were reviewed and the bargaining agent was consulted before the list of designated positions was established. With the information that the bargaining agent provided to us, we revised the list and implemented it. The list was revised in the light of the directives that the Treasury Board Secretariat has provided to us in recent years. These required us to consult the bargaining agent again and to negotiate the list used in the previous round.
Mr. Fabiano: I was not in this position four years ago. Almost all our employees are designated essential. So there was no great debate. About 80 per cent of our employees are designated essential.
[English]
Like for corrections officers, that’s not something we’ve ever had a debate with because it seemed to be that. There might have been some negotiation or discussion about a couple of positions, but typically we have not had a significant debate. So the last round, although we had the ability to just designate, which we did, I don’t think it met with a lot of debate or discussion.
Senator Pratte: About sick leave, one scenario that we hear a lot about is that of an employee who arrives at the end of his or her career and has 122 sick leave days accumulated and uses these days to retire early.
Is that possible? Is it feasible to say, “Well, okay, I have 122 days accumulated. Bye, you will never see me again”?
Mr. Fabiano: It’s certainly possible. If somebody has built up sick leave, follows through and a doctor provides them with a medical certificate that gives them a certain amount of time off, that could happen and it does. For extended sick leave we have the ability to ask for documentation from doctors. It’s not as simple as somebody saying, “I choose not to come to work.” If somebody is off for a significant period of time, we will ask for a medical certificate. I think, like my colleague Mr. Thibodeau, that’s not something that we see as an area of abuse or an area that we monitor.
We try to also monitor throughout the person’s career. We have at CSC a national attendance monitoring program where we look at the averages of different groups because different groups take different sick leaves. If some individuals are much higher than the average for that group, it will begin a conversation with their manager. Again, it could be early in their career, there could be an illness or there could be something else. If there is a reason for it, it’s nice, but if it’s all of a sudden a pattern, where every Friday or Monday somebody is ill, we have the ability with our trending and our information to do that. It’s not something we don’t look at throughout a person’s career. I think a good organization is going to manage that, trend it, look at it. Treasury Board also provides that information during collective negotiations. Anecdotally people are always going to provide stories of that individual who, at the end of their career has taken sick leave, but I think we see this as a progression throughout their whole career.
[Translation]
Mr. Thibodeau: I could offer an alternative interpretation of that scenario. It is that, when people are really sick and take extended leave, it can often lead them to re-examine their career choices and to end those careers. What may be perceived as using sick leave as a form of early retirement is actually a scenario in which people really become ill to the point that they cannot return to work. So they retire. That is an alternative interpretation.
Senator Pratte: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Eaton: From what I understand, Senator Pratte asked you about sick days. So they are not bankable? In other words, I can go year after year, and I can’t add them up at the end?
Mr. Fabiano: Yes, you can. The way the formula works today is you are granted so many days a year, and they accumulate year after year, and they bank. I think it’s 15 days a year approximately.
Senator Eaton: So if you are a young person who just started your work you have no days.
Mr. Fabiano: You don’t have a lot of days when you first start, and then you accumulate more days as you build up through your career.
Senator Eaton: You have women in your workforce. Do women take fewer or more sick days because of looking after children or caring for parents? You don’t have data on that?
Mr. Fabiano: Within the federal government we have different types of leave. We have sick leave. We have family-related leave for care and nurturing of children. Again, it’s the type of leave we have — sick leave, leave for appointments and leave for a child. Care of a sick child shouldn’t be your sick leave.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Just back to what I heard you saying to Senators Marshall and Pratte. Would it be fair to say that with respect to the bargaining issues, not sick leave but the other issues, that by design or just the way things all worked out, really nothing changed in the relationship? Nobody who wasn’t classified X became classified X; there wasn’t a lot done. I appreciate it was only a small space of time when the one bill was in force before this one has come forward. I think you mentioned that the government told you not to pay attention to that and to go ahead and continue to consult with unions, which is fine. But it doesn’t sound to me like very much changed.
Minister Brison was clear about this, that this really comes down to an issue of a promise that was made to labour as part of the election and an issue of respect, that in fact, in labour relations the way that the previous government handled this was counterproductive to the bargaining process. That’s my first question.
My second question is: We change governments quite a bit. Could you comment on how smart it would be if the next government did the same thing and we start going back and forth every time the government changes on how we posture ourselves with our civil service, the people that work hard for us every day?
Mr. Fabiano: Two difficult questions, and perhaps I can answer the question by describing it in two pieces. Some of this legislation sets the stage for how things are going to play out. Ultimately, as employers and as our bargaining unit, we are less focussed on how we get to the table than on negotiating. At the table, with the bargaining unit and our agents, I am focussed on having negotiations in good faith. But I won’t sit here and declare that the bargaining agents were happy with some of the changes that were made. It didn’t interfere with our good faith bargaining at the table, but I won’t speak for them. You have to ask them.
But at the end of the day, we know that sitting down and negotiating with our bargaining partners is the best solution, and we continue to do so.
The rules of engagement are important and how people interpret those rules might be different, but I think ultimately we need to sit down and negotiate with them.
You asked about the essential services. Because of the nature of our department, historically we didn’t change a lot. We didn’t see a huge pushback from our employer. Others may have.
Mr. Thibodeau: I’ll start from that point in terms of what has been the history. If you look over time, the changes that were introduced didn’t have a significant impact in terms of the CBSA experience. There was an increase in terms of the number of positions that we were looking at designated. We discussed that with the bargaining agents, but at the end of the day we agreed. The number we agreed to was close to what we had initially discussed with the bargaining agents before Bill C-4 and what we ended up with. So practically speaking a lot changed, not from that perspective.
The bargaining agent did express some concern about the changes in terms of the exchanges we had in bargaining. How did that play out in the end in terms of tone? I think Minister Brison would be better positioned, or officials from the board, to address that question in terms of what the overall impact was.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I am interested by the essential services. The working environment of Correctional Services is so stressful or dangerous. Under the current provisions, the government is able to find senior managers and non-unionized staff to provide essential services. Can you tell me what you think of that under the current legislation, in an environment like yours?
[English]
Mr. Fabiano: If I understand correctly, we have the right as management to occupy certain positions during a strike, which does assist.
Senator Moncion: The way the bill is written right now, the government could designate, management and non-syndicated staff to do Correctional Services work.
Mr. Fabiano: I think for us it has a little bit less impact because, as indicated, most of our people at institutional level will be deemed essential services. In fact, our correctional officers’ bargaining agents have agreed to that. We will continue to bargain with our parole officers and health care staff. It helps. If those were to fail, designating management the ability to occupy some of those things is needed. If we failed in that negotiation, we would still need to find a way to carry out those services. I think, ultimately, because of the negotiations we are having with our partners, we won’t need all of that provision to be implemented.
Senator Moncion: So the way it’s written now, it doesn’t affect your group?
Mr. Fabiano: Not us, because of the large number of people we would already have as essential services.
[Translation]
Mr. Thibodeau: We are more or less in the same situation, except that we do not have the same level of essential services. Basically, those in the front line, the employees that you see when you go through customs, represent 75 to 80 per cent of the positions that are designated essential. That alone provides us with a good group that we can go back to. Along the same lines, we have supervisory staff, management staff, excluded staff, who work in our operations and can come in and lend a hand in daily operations. So we are in a situation where, because of the nature of the work and the discussions we have historically had with the bargaining agent, we already have a high level of essential services. That allows us somewhat to reduce the need to resort to other kinds of staff in the case of a strike.
Senator Moncion: So, if I understand correctly, the act currently in place does not really affect you. You are able to operate with it. I am not talking about Bill C-62. Is that what you are telling me?
Mr. Thibodeau: In practice, yes.
Senator Moncion: How about in principle?
Mr. Thibodeau: For the Border Services Agency, principles always have to be put into our operational context. The current legislation allows us to meet our needs and fulfill our mandate.
Senator Moncion: In Bill C-62, what works to your advantage or makes things better for you? If I gather that what already exists does not bother you too much, what does Bill C-62 do for you most?
[English]
Mr. Fabiano: It would obviously be easier for us if we didn’t have to negotiate and just designate who we saw fit. Is there a benefit to not having the old system? Certainly. But I think we also understand that, long term, this is not going to hurt us because of the nature of our operational business.
Just to add to your question, we already train our front-line managers fully on the ability to carry out correctional officers’ duties. We have situations today where our correctional officers remove their services for reasons of danger or otherwise and we have to continue with the operation.
We have the ability to run the operations with managers who are trained to do it today. In a strike situation, the ability to designate our managers is something that we still need in order to do that. At the end of the day, for the operation of a department like ours, it won’t change much but it requires us to have conversations and negotiations on some levels.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Mr. Thibodeau, I am quite impressed with the figures that you provided: 17 million commercial releases annually last year, and 780,000 courier inspections. Are your commercial releases all transactions going by courier, truck or air, and so on?
Mr. Thibodeau: Some transactions come to us electronically. Others are more physical and are declared at the port of entry.
Senator Forest: Will the well-known increase in e-commerce have an impact on this volume of transactions?
Mr. Thibodeau: E-commerce is certainly increasing the volume of parcels being imported.
Senator Forest: With this whole demographic challenge of the next generation, have your services done any forecasts of how this type of commerce will develop in terms of things like the needs and the impact on essential services?
Mr. Thibodeau: I can tell you that, with the essential services, it is one of the areas where we are analyzing each of the modes and services of commerce, as we are doing for imports through Canada Post and imports in general. We do an analysis regularly. If you are asking me whether we have a plan for the coming years in terms of essential services for those modes, I will have to say no.
Senator Forest: Do you have a plan for the next five years?
Mr. Thibodeau: We are in the process of reviewing the analysis at the moment, because we are going to start other discussions with the bargaining agent. Import forecasting plans are in place. Management does consider those aspects when it determines the positions that it wants to put forward as essential.
Senator Forest: With your current knowledge of Bill C-62, it is always easier to make decisions by yourself. We move quicker alone but we go further as a group. Does Bill C-62 help to create a working environment that is better able to deal with those types of changes?
Mr. Thibodeau: I would make two points. The first is that collaboration makes it possible to have conversations about organizational change, and that is always a good thing. The second point is the possibility of reviewing essential services agreements as situations evolve.
Senator Forest: In your opinion, given this organizational challenge, is Bill C-62 useful or an irritant?
Mr. Thibodeau: In the long term, I can tell you that the collaboration that has been mentioned is better. In your question, you said that we go further as a group; that is true, but if we have an urgent need in a specific area, it is certainly easier to go ahead on our own.
Senator Forest: Mr. Fabiano, if I may, I would like to clarify the issue of sick leave. In some organizations, such as the Government of Quebec, you can accumulate sick leave and, when you retire, you are automatically credited with them. If someone has 144 days of sick leave and adds them to vacation days, then can basically leave and spend a year and a half in the arms of the government. In your collective agreements, that is not possible in that they are not automatically credited. You need a certificate showing a medical condition in order to use sick days, whatever the number. Is my understanding correct?
Mr. Fabiano: Yes. I will speak in English so that I can be clearer.
[English]
Just like in Quebec, you can accumulate days from year to year so you could reach the last year and you may have 200 or 300 days. You cannot automatically turn that into leave. That requires a reason to use sick leave. Regardless of whether you are in year one or if you are in year 30, to use your sick leave you have to declare you are sick. We have the discretion, depending on the length of the leave, to ask for medical proof.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: In your statistics, you indicated that 10.2 per cent of your employees have an indigenous background.
Mr. Fabiano: Yes.
Senator Forest: We know that Canada’s indigenous population is overrepresented in our prisons. Given that reality, given that you are not in an easy work environment, do you have any objectives in the future to increase the number of your employees with an indigenous background?
Mr. Fabiano: Yes, absolutely. Our goal is to have more indigenous employees.
Senator Forest: Do you have a goal, a five-year goal?
Mr. Fabiano: No, we do not have a target.
[English]
The workforce availability right now is lower than what we have, so we know we want to continue. Can we reach the point where the number of Indigenous employees we have merits the number of inmates we have that are Indigenous? That could prove to be difficult, but we continue to find new ways to recruit Indigenous people into our employment.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you for the presentations so far.
I’m struck by the importance in both of your organizations of a culture of respect among your employees in terms of the successful execution of your responsibilities. Certainly whenever I deal with Canadian border security personnel when I go to the United States for different purposes, it’s nice to see the culture of respect that is demonstrated. I thank you for that, and I would think that is very important to both organizations. Some of these measures I would think are very important in terms of reinforcing the culture of respect.
Thinking about hazards and dangers facing workers in both organizations, it was intriguing to find that Bill C-4 significantly narrows the definition of danger from that in the Canadian Labour Code. Has been an issue, from your standpoint? It focusses more on imminent or serious threat to life versus potential, upcoming, foreseen hazards. I wonder if that has been a concern, because I think both of your organizations’ personnel are dealing with dangerous situations quite commonly.
Mr. Fabiano: Yes. We welcome the narrowing of the definition of danger — or not narrowing, but clarifying it. As you indicated, we work in a dangerous and hazardous environment. By its nature, it is hazardous. However, we also work extremely hard at training our employees and providing security equipment, et cetera.
Workplaces are not all the same, so inherent dangers are taken into consideration. What is an imminent danger versus a potential danger is important in our business because when somebody invokes a danger criterion and refuses to work, we still have to provide essential services to inmates in terms of feeding them and health care. So balancing the need to protect employees from the hazards with a clear definition is something we continue to struggle with.
Senator C. Deacon: Let me try to be clear. The current definition under Bill C-4, which has not been modified under this legislation, is acceptable and suitable in your situation?
Mr. Fabiano: Yes.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
Mr. Thibodeau?
Mr. Thibodeau: Yes, it is the same situation for us. Health and safety is a priority for the agency, and having a safe work environment is critical. While we are comfortable with the current definition, we think that clarity is key. Especially when dangerous situations are imminent, we need to know what they are and deal with them.
A number of avenues are available to discuss various health and safety concerns for the employees. That’s still available and we’re continuing to engage with our bargaining agent’s partner to make sure we have a safe workplace.
I think the definition of danger provides the necessary clarity to address imminent risk and allows for discussions to take place about safety concerns, with a view to making sure the workplace is safe. We are comfortable with the current definition.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I have two questions about sick leave. Is it not true that if employees use sick leave for a period that exceeds the accumulated leave and they leave their job at a later time, they will have to pay back the sick leave?
Mr. Thibodeau: That is what is set out in the collective agreement, except in the event of death.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you for your answer.
In terms of the definition of health and safety, which was amended by Bill C-4 at the time, in the Canada Labour Code, this is not part of the context or the fines in Bill C-62, correct?
Mr. Thibodeau: That’s my understanding.
Senator Bellemare: Mine too. Thank you.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much. We’re looking at different workforces from generation to generation. Mr. Fabiano, in your opening statement you mentioned that Bill C-62 amends the act so that employers are no longer exclusively responsible for determining what is essential and what is not, and, of course, an elaboration of Correctional Services work.
My question is about this exclusive right. Is this something that you, your workplaces, your work environment that’s coming through, is happy about? We assume this is no longer exclusive, and that part is a good thing, but I would love to know what that conversation looks like at your work.
Mr. Fabiano: It’s interesting, because it’s at the workforce level and at the bargaining agent level. At the workforce level I will tell you that it’s pretty much unknown. I don’t think they are familiar with it. At the bargaining agent level it is appreciated because it puts back the notion of bargaining. I don’t believe it’s a topic of intense debate among employees directly.
Mr. Thibodeau: I’m going to go in the same direction. I think it’s unknown to the individual. To some extent, it is also unknown to managers when we talk about essential services with them. We talk about the definition, we say what are essential services, and then we talk about the rules of engagement. However, the discussion is much more about what is an essential service, what we should be proposing, than about whether we have unilateral rates in relation to determination or whether it’s a negotiation.
Senator M. Deacon: That’s the right conversation, I think. I just wondered if there was interference supplementing the work at the labour level. Thank you both very much.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: My question is about sick leave, although I know you mentioned that you wanted to talk about essential services. Employees accumulate 15 days of sick leave per year, don’t they?
Mr. Fabiano: Yes.
Senator Moncion: At what point does the short-term disability plan come into play?
Mr. Thibodeau: The short-term disability plan represents the sick leave plan provided for in the collective agreement. To explain all that, I will jump from one end of the equation to the other and then go back to the middle. As I just said, the short-term disability plan is the sick leave plan provided for in the collective agreement. To benefit from the long-term disability insurance plan, there is a 15-week waiting period.
Senator Moncion: Okay.
Mr. Thibodeau: For the period between the two plans, when there are not enough sick leave credits, it’s always possible to access an advance of sick leave credits of up to 25 days or to get employment insurance benefits in the event of illness.
Senator Moncion: So I understand that no short-term disability insurance comes into effect before the 15-week waiting period. Employees must absolutely accumulate 15 days a year, up to 75 days, to not be penalized, take advantage of leave credits or have to resort to employment insurance. Is that right?
Mr. Fabiano: Yes.
Senator Moncion: So I now understand the need for leave banks, and I also understand why employees would use their sick days after 75 days, I suppose.
Now, in the case of Correctional Services, I assume that you probably need to take sick leave more frequently than in any other federal government service. Am I mistaken?
Mr. Fabiano: No, you are right.
Senator Moncion: Some of your employees may take more than 15 days of sick leave in a year, either because of injuries or post-traumatic stress issues.
Mr. Fabiano: Absolutely. Our work environment is stressful and we suffer injuries. However, there is a difference between work-related injuries and sick leave.
[English]
If somebody is hurt at work there are other provisions. There is sick leave, workers compensation and other safety nets. I think a combination of factors, including shift work, stressful environments, the activity — it’s a physical work. For some people, if they sprain their ankle on the weekend playing baseball and they work in an office they can come to work. In our operation, as a correctional officer, if you sprain your ankle on the weekend you really can’t come to work. We’ve always said that high leave usage is not a fair assumption of our employees because they need to be physically fit to show up to work versus if I sit in an office. If I hurt myself, I can get myself to the office and I can work. There are a couple of factors that indicate why we have high leave usage by correctional officers.
Senator Moncion: It gives us an explanation of why the banks are important for public servants as opposed to when you are in a private enterprise or private company. Some companies, like the one I worked for, after five days you had short-term disability. We had the opportunity to reduce the number of days that were given as sick leave, because if someone was going on sick leave longer than five days then they went on insurance and after 90 days they went on long-term. For the government there is a big cost issue associated with having short-term insurance for 200,000 employees.
Thank you. It clarifies the section that touches on the sick leave and the banks that are constituted by the employees.
Mr. Fabiano: When we talk to young employees it is a bank that you have to manage and it’s not something should be expended every week, every year. When I started many years ago I was told you need to build up your bank to 45 days to have a safety net. That was something told to me. That’s we tell young people. You need to build up that bank, not for abuse later, but to build the safety net that you require. Banks are important.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for the clarification, Senator Moncion.
Mr. Thibodeau, Mr. Fabiano, on behalf of the committee, thank you for your remarks on Bill C-62.
[English]
Honourable senators, thank you for your attention and questions. I will remind you that we will continue our study of Bill C-62 at next week’s Tuesday morning meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)