Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 78 - Evidence - October 31, 2018 (afternoon 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 12:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable Senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
My name is Percy Mockler. I am a senator from New Brunswick and chair of the committee. I wish to welcome all of those 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 also available online at sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
Minister, I will introduce you in the next few minutes. Thank you for having accepted our invitation.
[English]
I would like to ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting from my left.
Senator Day: Senator Joseph Day from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Good afternoon. Diane Bellemare from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Good afternoon. Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Mégie: Hello. Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Welcome. Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Eaton: Nicole Eaton from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators.
[Translation]
I would also like to introduce the clerk of the committee, Ms. Gaëtane Lemay, as well as our analyst from the Library of Parliament, Mr. Alex Smith; both of them support the work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
Honourable senators, today we begin our consideration of Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts, which was referred to the committee on October 16, 2018, by the Senate of Canada.
This afternoon, to commence our hearings, we have invited the sponsor of the bill in the other place. We are pleased to welcome the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government, the Honourable Scott Brison.
[Translation]
Thank you, minister, for having accepted our invitation.
[English]
Honourable senators, the minister is accompanied by officials from Treasury Board Secretariat.
[Translation]
We welcome Ms. Sandra Hassan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations.
[English]
Also, we have Mr. Dennis Duggan, Senior Labour Relations Consultant, Compensation and Labour Relations.
[Translation]
We also have with us Mr. Jérôme Mercier, Director, Expenditure Analysis and Compensation Planning, Expenditure Management Sector.
[English]
Minister, again, welcome. Thank you for always accepting our invitation. The floor is yours.
Hon. Scott Brison, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government: Thank you, Senator Mockler, and also thank you to my Treasury Board officials who are here with us today. We have a great public service. I think our officials at Treasury Board are the cream of the crop. They serve both me as minister but also broadly Canadians exceptionally well.
I was thinking, actually, when everyone was introducing themselves earlier, of the depth and breadth of backgrounds in this room, and I find this at Senate committees. You are ranging from banking to an Auditor General to ministers from provincial governments, journalists, legislators, tech start-ups and angel investment. It’s great. I always leave Senate committees just a little — I forgot lawyers as well. I didn’t want to leave out any profession. I always leave Senate committees a little smarter just through osmosis from spending time with you.
I’m here today to provide an overview of Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts. When our government took office in 2015, we promised to reinstate legislation on working conditions and labour relations in the public service that respect the collective bargaining process, laws that recognize the important role of unions and protecting workers’ rights and helping to grow the middle class, and that’s exactly what Bill C-62 does.
[Translation]
This legislation combines Bills C-5 and C-34, which were introduced on February 5, 2016, and November 28, 2016, respectively. Bill C-5 had to do with public service sick leave, while Bill C-34 dealt with collective bargaining and essential services.
[English]
Combining these bills into Bill C-62 simply incorporates the adjustments necessary to combine the two sets of proposals into one piece of legislation. This is so the measures can make their way through the parliamentary process as efficiently as possible.
[Translation]
Let me begin with the changes to sick leave introduced as part of the omnibus 2015 Budget Implementation Act.
[English]
Division 20 of the omnibus budget bill in 2015, no. 1 — at the time, it was known as Bill C-59 — took away the unions’ ability to negotiate sick leave and gave the government the power to unilaterally impose any plan it saw fit. It also allowed the government of the day to use questionable accounting to unilaterally cancel the bank of sick days for public servants and to use what I consider to be illusory savings of $900 million to, for all intents and purposes, pad the books to help create an illusory surplus of $1.4 billion on the eve of an election.
The bargaining agents for many of the public service unions loudly, and I believe rightly, opposed this legislation, which was drafted without any consultation. In fact, in June of 2015, 12 of the 15 federal unions representing public servants filed a joint lawsuit to challenge these provisions, arguing that they were unconstitutional.
Our government is committed, and I have said from the beginning I’m committed personally, to restoring a culture of respect with our public service and the unions that represent them. Bill C-62 would rescind the government’s unilateral powers when it comes to sick leave. It would demonstrate respect for the collective bargaining process by sending these issues back to the negotiating table.
[Translation]
Our government believes that labour unions play an important role not only in protecting the rights of workers but also in strengthening the middle class by negotiating working conditions and compensation.
[English]
That’s why we’ve committed to not using unilateral powers to amend sick leave and to repealing the legislative provisions that gave the government of the day that authority.
Let me turn to the issue of essential services, collective bargaining and dispute resolution. With Bill C-62, the government also intends to repeal the most contentious changes made to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act in 2013, then known as the Public Service Labour Relations Act. I’m referring to changes that would give the employer the power to unilaterally determine what services are essential, take away the bargaining agent’s choice when it comes to how to revolve labour disputes and impose new factors that arbitrators must consider when making an award or a recommendation.
You will recall at the time that several unions when so far as to file Charter challenges against the provisions adopted in 2013. There is a very good reason to believe that those challenges would have been successful, in large part because of what happened in Saskatchewan. In 2008, the Saskatchewan government introduced similar changes — ones that were very similar — to those passed in the omnibus bill in 2013, and those changes were successfully challenged by the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour before the Supreme Court.
Let me outline the details of some of the key changes we’re proposing.
First, the notice to bargain would be changed back to four months. The parties may, however, meet beforehand to enter into negotiations.
Second, bargaining agents would have the right to decide which dispute resolution process they would like to use, whether it’s a conciliation-and-strike route or arbitration, should bargaining come to a standstill. The changes made in 2013 would have taken that choice away.
Third, public interest commissions and arbitration boards would no longer be required to give undue weight to certain factors when making awards or recommendations. They would regain the ability to weigh the factors as they see fit in each unique set of circumstances.
Fourth, the employer would no longer have the sole authority to arbitrarily determine which services are essential for the safety and security of the public and to designate positions necessary to provide these services. Under the current system, the employer has this authority to designate essential services. Bill C-62 proposes that the employer would work with public sector bargaining agents to identify essential service positions and would enter into essential service agreements with them.
Fifth, and finally, Bill C-62 seeks to repeal the changes to recourse processes, even though they were never implemented because they were meant to be put in place at a later date.
These are the key points of the legislation.
In terms of our working with the public sector unions, when we formed the government, just to set the context of this, there are 27 collective bargaining agreements with 15 bargaining groups. When we formed government, all those agreements had expired. Some of them had expired for almost four years. Therefore, no public servant had bargaining agreements. We negotiated in good faith over what has been a two-year period and have now achieved collective bargaining agreements representing, I’m told, 99.8 per cent of public servants. Now, because of the fact that, in some cases, they had already expired for four years, we are now entering a new round of collective bargaining agreements today. We have done so in a spirit of good faith and goodwill. We haven’t agreed on everything, but when we have disagreed, we have disagreed without being disagreeable.
I have great respect for our public service and the unions that represent them. We are making progress, not just in terms of things like remuneration but also broadly on mental health in the workplace, on diversity within the workplace, on strengthening the services we provide to Canadians, on attracting more young people to the public service, including millennials, which is a real challenge, and in making the public service less hierarchical and more agile in terms of how we address issues. Part of that is my role now as Minister of Digital Government as well. It’s also about strengthening our internal capacity in things like project management, procurement and digital government. These are the things that are really important to me on a personal level.
A lot of people are attracted to government. There are two big shiny objects to which people are drawn in government: One is policy and the other is communications. Everyone thinks that if you get the policy right and the communications right, it will implement itself. That’s not the way it works in business, and that’s not the way it works in government. We are building up our capacity in things like project management and execution in results and delivery. To do all that, we need to maintain and strengthen a culture of respect with the public service, and I believe we’ve made strong progress in terms of that.
I want to speak on the sick leave issue broadly. The current sick leave system is not perfect; there are problems with it. In fact, it disadvantages younger public servants who may fall ill and have not worked long enough to accumulate a sufficient number of sick days. I believe it doesn’t do enough to help people with mental health issues and whose supervisors may not have the experience to deal with this.
It’s important, and I’ve expressed to the unions that I really want to see us strengthen our sick leave program to be not as much as a sick leave program but a wellness program within the Government of Canada. We are working and in discussions with unions to develop not a sick leave regime per se but something better, which is a cross-government focus on wellness, including mental health. There are changes that ought to be made, and we will pursue those through negotiation and not unilaterally impose them. That’s the right way to do it, in the spirit of partnership with our public service.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members.
The Chair: Thank you.
Honourable senators, please bear with me. I would like to bring to your attention that, because of the time frame with the minister and his officials, it is important to have your full cooperation in asking questions. Because of the list of senators indicating their desire to ask questions on Bill C-62, I will please ask each senator to be succinct in asking questions. Also, except for the first round, we would only ask two questions, and we would come back on a second round, time permitting.
I will do the same thing with the minister and his officials: Minister, I would ask you and your officials to be succinct in your answers.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for being here, minister. I do take you at your word with respect to just trying to reset the relationship with the civil service. To your comment about execution, it’s important that we have a good relationship with the civil service and that they feel they are respected and partners in government.
I’ve got two opening questions. First of all — and you alluded to it a bit — the data shows that sick leave unfairly favours men over women. That is through the piece. Near the end of their careers, you can see it by who has accumulated what. Could you tell me if, in this bill, which is repealing a lot but it’s a bill, gender analysis was done? If so, what possible result came of that?
Second, you mentioned that it is clearly time to renegotiate this. This is not for the times. You mentioned you have signalled to the unions that you want to fix this or modernize it, and I think that’s extremely important. Are you prepared to stick to a negotiating position through the negotiations, or will this be something that, if the unions push hard enough, they can keep the sick-day-banking program?
Finally, could it be, relative to that in the negotiation, that they actually see this as a benefit — that it is something being used as a benefit at end of career for a minority but a significant portion of people, and that maybe we ought to monetize it or do something to get that issue out of the way? Do you find this banked sick leave turning into a benefit at the end as being a potential barrier to a proper negotiation and a logical conclusion on this benefit?
Mr. Brison: Thank you, Senator Tannas.
There are a couple things on this. You raised the issue of gender equity, and this has been a big week for it in terms of pay equity in the Government of Canada and federally regulated industries. I was just with the public sector unions having a discussion on that moments ago.
We have had very constructive discussions with the PIPS union and Debi Daviau on this whole area of a centre of wellness within the Government of Canada, building a regime within the Government of Canada that would change the focus from being purely a sick leave one to one of ongoing wellness. It would provide the benefits of third-party decision-making in terms of this but would be administered within the Government of Canada.
One of challenges we have is that a lot of time supervisors may or may not have experience in dealing with — for instance, if an employee is off work with a mental health issue, there is a real risk in the current system that, through no one’s particular fault, that employee kind of feels abandoned. It’s good for people to get back to work. It’s good for them and their families, not just in terms of remuneration but in terms of having a sense of purpose every day, getting up and being able to go back.
We have made progress with PIPS, as an example, and we will continue to work with them. We will be having the discussions with PSAC and Chris Aylward on that as well. We are very much engaged in those discussions on how to, as you put it, modernize the wellness regime within the federal public service. Sandra may want to add to that.
Sandra Hassan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: As indicated by Minister Brison, there are currently two tables looking at the whole employee wellness support plans, and there is work being done to see how there could be improvement made to the regime. As indicated, it is being negotiated. It takes time because it’s more of a holistic approach that we are looking into, and there are many factors to consider. But there is good progress in regards to this very important issue.
Mr. Brison: Again, we are negotiating it as opposed to unilaterally imposing it, so it does take longer and it is more complex, but I think it gets you to a better place.
One of the things I mentioned earlier is I do believe young public servants who, for whatever reason — whether it is a chronic or serious illness — are not really treated equitably under the current system. That’s one of the things I want us to address.
Senator Tannas: And the gender question?
Mr. Brison: We are always, in terms of gender — you are talking in terms of sick days. We always maintain a strong focus on gender equity in terms of what we do, but that doesn’t obviate the importance of maintaining the commitment that we made to reverse something that was unilaterally imposed on public servants. The unilateral imposition of this change was bad for women and men within the public service and helped to toxify the environment. We do gender-based analysis on our decisions as a government, and ultimately, I think where we are going to land on this will be better for women and men in the public service.
Senator Pratte: Minister, to continue on this topic of sick leave, I guess one of the reasons why the previous government decided to adopt this law was that they felt there was abuse of the sick leave program: for instance, people collecting sick days and, at the end of their career, using them as a way to retire earlier, in fact. Do you believe that there is abuse of this system to the extent that it is unfixable by collective negotiation?
Mr. Brison: I don’t think there is anything too difficult to negotiate respectfully and make progress on.
If you are asking me to prove that not a single person has ever taken advantage of the sick leave system, I can’t prove a negative. My father was born in 1923. He is 95 now. He worked until he was 82, and I don’t remember him ever missing a day of work during that time. I come from a tradition where you take a sick day when you are sick.
The reality is that Statistics Canada did a study from just a few years ago comparing work absences between the private sector and the public sector. It found that when you account for demographic differences of the public sector, there is not a substantial difference in how much time they miss work. I actually believe there has been a torquing of the perception around this.
I do believe that the current sick leave system needs modernization. I do not think it’s somehow perfect. As I mentioned earlier, young public servants who find themselves in a chronic or serious health issue are not treated very fairly because they have not accumulated enough sick days. I do think the system can be improved, and that’s the objective of working with the unions.
Again, I can’t tell you that I can guarantee that the sick leave provisions have never been abused by anyone, but if you really study the analysis, if you take a look at the Statistics Canada report comparing the analysis of the public and private sectors, the delta is not significant. Again, what did Mark Twain say? There are lies, damn lies and statistics. But the facts actually show that the perception of this is maybe that it’s a bigger issue than the reality of it. The public servants with whom I’ve been privileged to serve work extremely hard, as do parliamentarians — senators and members of House of Commons. Public servants, I think by and large, are eager to come to work to make a difference in the lives of Canadians, and they do so with a great deal of industry.
Senator Pratte: Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by “modernization” of the sick leave program, besides the fact that obviously you are concerned for young civil servants who do not have access to a sufficient number of days in some cases? Besides that, what does “modernization” mean?
Mr. Brison: One of the things to look at is, within the public service, asking ourselves if supervisors necessarily have the skill set to administer sick leave on a case-by-case basis, particularly with the emergence and the understanding of mental health issues that we have today compared to 20 years ago. It’s an important question. Can we have within the Government of Canada a wellness system that provides the benefits of third-party administration but provided by expertise within the Government of Canada? Health Canada has a significant level of expertise in that area now, so we don’t have to actually create a new set of skills within the Government of Canada. In some cases, it means finding a way to use skills that already exist within our public service, and that’s what we’re looking at. That’s some of the discussions we’re having a PIPS right now, the union.
Senator Eaton: Minister, how nice to see you again. About a year ago, you appeared before this committee and you charged us. You said it would be a good idea if a Senate committee looked at military procurement and how it should be done, so we are doing a report. We are starting to work on it.
Mr. Brison: You figured it out.
Senator Eaton: We are doing your orders. My question to you, as the President of the Treasury Board, are you the person accountable now for military procurement?
Mr. Brison: The accountability for military procurement is really important. Public Services and Procurement Canada — Public Works, when I was minister of it — plays an important role. Their focus is on getting the best value for taxpayers in an open, transparent and legally tenable process. Defence is focused on getting the best equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces and men and women in uniform. Then industry, or now ISED, is focused on getting the best jobs for Canadians, what we now call ITBs.
Senator Eaton: There is not one person.
Mr. Brison: Treasury Board has an overarching job in terms of scrutiny of public expenditure to ensure the best possible value for expenditures and, on an ongoing basis, to ensure the integrity of procurement process and that value for money is delivered. The value for money one is important for all government departments, but it’s one the Treasury Board takes very seriously because we have a responsibility in terms of expenditure management across government.
The Chair: Please permit me, honourable senators: We are here on Bill C-62, and we will have an opportunity to ask further questions later.
Senator Eaton: I will get to that question, but I wanted to know that he is now responsible.
The Chair: Would you please move to the question on Bill C-62, senator?
Senator Eaton: Minister, the old bill took away the choice of unions between arbitration and conciliation. They could only to go conciliation. Was there anything that showed why unions now or in the past always preferred arbitration? Has a study been looked at? Is it more beneficial for unions to go to arbitration than conciliation? Why have you changed it back?
Mr. Brison: I think giving a choice. In some cases, conciliation may be the best way forwards. In some cases, it may be arbitration. Providing that flexibility, I think, makes a lot of sense. It doesn’t limit us in any way. It simply goes back to what was in place in the past, again providing the choice.
Senator Eaton: But why do you think the government took that choice away? There must have been a reason.
Mr. Brison: There is a number of curiosities I have about the way the previous government managed its relationship with the public service. I could never understand, from a business perspective, why you would publicly, not just privately but publicly, attack your employees. I couldn’t understand that. Imagine if the president of General Motors were to publicly say bad things about their employees gratuitously. I could never understand that, because it was kind of a gratuitous thing. I think there may have been some level of politics to it in terms of a base. I don’t agree with everything with our unions, and we won’t agree on everything when we negotiate, but we negotiate in good faith.
Senator Eaton, just on your previous question, the role the Treasury Board plays in terms of defence procurement is one we play in terms of overall expenditures. There is a challenge function we play at Treasury Board, that I play at every cabinet committee and at the cabinet table and our officials play with every department and agency, that is focused on ensuring we are getting good value for money.
Senator C. Deacon: It is really great to see you. I am pleased to see the focus on digital government. Your hiring of Alex Bonnet and Erin Stowe and others and the focus there to be able to execute, to increase productivity, is for me really inspiring, changing how we deliver services.
When it comes to Bill C-62, I can’t get my head past one particular issue, and that’s what a great payment, remuneration level, benefits package, pension package and job security that we give our public servants. It’s phenomenal. We need good people in government, period. I love the levels of respect I hear. Private enterprise in this country, not the large public corporations but the SMEs that dominate, and certainly the sector I come from, the start-up tech sector, we can’t compete with where things have got to in the federal government. In Atlantic Canada, a study a few years ago showed a significant premium being paid to public sector employees relative to private sector employees.
The questions I get are really at that level. Where can there be a bit of a rebalancing? It looks like the growth in public sector employment in this country continues at a fairly significant level, generally speaking. I’m looking to that competitiveness side and how there could be more of a comparative balance between public sector jobs and private sector jobs at the SME level?
Mr. Brison: Thank you. There has been a secular growth in the public service for some time. Some of the challenges we are taking on as governments writ large, not just federal government but all governments, the challenges we face through public policy and implementation today, are probably more complex than they have ever been before.
You mentioned digital government. One of the challenges we have within government is attracting and retaining, for instance, top digital talent. It’s a challenge we face. We can’t offer stock options, as an example. But what I say to people who are working in the digital world outside of government is, “We can’t offer you stock options, but we can give you something even better: You can make a difference in the lives of Canadians and paint on a larger canvas.” We are actually able to attract people on that basis.
It works both ways. For instance, on the start up side, I have huge respect for the community that you represent, not just geographically but in terms of industry. The whole start-up and angel-investing network is critically important to Canada. But there are sectors, including that one, from which we find it difficult to attract talent in terms of digital talent. So it’s not a monolith.
It depends on which area you are talking about. There are areas within the public service sector that compare very favourably to the private sector. There are areas and job categories where that is different, and we actually have a challenge in attracting people because of the difference. Job security is one thing within the public service, and it is significant, but you do not have the same level of upside either.
In the future, I’d like to see greater flexible to enable people throughout their career and life path to come into the public sector, to serve for a period, to go back into the private sector, to cross pollinate both public sector and private sector employers with people who understand both. In the business world, I don’t think there are enough people who really have a strong understanding of government. In some ways, within government, there are not enough people who have a strong understanding of the business world.
As parliamentarians, we bring to this place some experience from different backgrounds. I would like to find a way to make the public service less rigid in terms of the ability of people to come in, serve, take on projects, go out and to come back. That is something I’d like to see. There are changes the previous government, and a government of which I was a member, Paul Martin’s government, made with the right intentions that may have taken us in the wrong direction on some of those things.
Senator Marshall: Welcome, minister. My question is on essential services. Are there essential services designated now? If so, how are you going to transition to the new requirements of this bill? If there aren’t essential services designated now, when do you do it? Do you wait until just before a collective agreement expires, or is it done early on? Could you provide some additional information on that, please?
Mr. Brison: This bill actually changes it so that we can’t simply impose the definition on a category. We can do it as part of a collective bargaining process, and that would be the time to do it. The discussions on essential services and getting an understanding of the union’s perspectives on that is something we would do immediately and on an ongoing basis, keeping in mind that the nature of essential services will evolve over time and that we want to have that flexibility to work with unions.
Senator Marshall: The bill is going to transition with regard to essential services. Are there essential services designated now? What happens when the bill goes through? Is that scrapped? What’s the transition?
Dennis Duggan, Senior Labour Relations Consultant, Compensation and Labour Relations, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: We have accounted for that eventuality, which is normal. You have a point in time prior to the Royal Assent of the bill and then what happens after, so there are those transitional measures. There are essential services designated under the current bill that occur in anticipation of this current round of bargaining.
Senator Marshall: For all collective agreements?
Mr. Duggan: Yes, for all our departments. We are actually in a process now in preparation, and this occurred during the previous round, the one that’s just about complete, where we work with bargaining agents, notwithstanding the act, in terms of reviewing those essential services. They would have an input into the process and served as a way to get ready for this current round with the bargaining agent’s involvement.
Once the bill comes into force, that work is not lost because a lot of that work that would have had to be done subsequently will form the basis of what will eventually form essential services agreements. Those negotiations will have to conclude with a formal agreement prior to the ability of a bargaining agent wanting to take their membership out on strike.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
My second question is on the issue of sick leave. One of the issues that keeps getting raised by people who work outside the public service is the issue of people in their last year of employment with the public service taking sick leave and getting a year of sick leave as they transition into retirement. Are there any statistics regarding the number of employees who do this in their last year — take a year’s sick leave — and also the cost to the taxpayers?
Mr. Brison: I’m going to ask Jérôme to help on that. Senator Marshall, in terms of looking at the figures, there was a StatCan report from several years ago comparing work absences between the private sector and the public sector. When you account for some of the demographic features of the public sector, it did not find a substantial difference. Jérôme will be able to speak to your very specific question.
Jérôme Mercier, Director, Expenditure Analysis and Compensation Planning, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: The last year for which we can do this kind of analysis is for 2015-16. Based on this information, there were about 6,200 employees who retired from the federal core public administration. From that group, it’s estimated that about 1,400 retired with zero sick days in their banks, but I think it should be noted a number of those people left because of health-related reasons, and it should also be noted in the context of our long-term disability regime, employees are required to empty their banks prior to becoming eligible for long-term disability.
Senator Marshall: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: What type of consultations did you conduct with the unions about the changes you are making now? What did they say about the proposed changes?
[English]
Mr. Brison: There has been extensive consultation with public service unions, PSAC and PIPS being two of the lead groups but also with some of the smaller groups as well. There was a great deal of consensus within the public sector on a lot of these changes and discussions with public sector unions that have gone back now several years.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
My other question is not necessarily a question but maybe a comment. I know that a lot of young people have had a job with the federal government, but they were always on contract. Most of them have left because they were not getting permanent employment. My children will not apply because of that condition and because there is no permanency to the jobs they can apply to, so they are always on a rotation basis. Is this something that is going to be addressed? This bill doesn’t address it, but is this something you will be looking to address at some point?
Mr. Brison: I think there are significant changes we need to make in order to make a career in the public service more attractive to young people. You have struck on one. Another is the length of time it takes to actually go through the process to become a public servant. I was told a while ago that there was some progress made. It used to take 40 minutes to do an online application. Some changes and improvements were made, and they told me, quite proudly, that they reduced the amount of time it takes from 40 minutes to five minutes to fill out an application. Then I asked: How long after you fill out an application does it take to become a public servant? They told me 240 days. They’ve taken 35 minutes off of a 240-day process; I think we can probably make even more progress with it. There needs to be an agility within the public service in terms of how you get into it.
I do think it’s important to recognize that, for a lot of young people today, the idea of working for the same employer for 30 years is not necessarily something they think of as being natural. The amazing thing about the public service is that once you are in the public service, you can be in the Department of Environment doing environmental policy work or climate change work and can transition to being able to work in labour and be exposed to labour negotiations. The breadth of experiences you can have in terms of policy and ideas is unequalled. There is no employer who can give you a greater career and work variety in terms of experience than the public service, so it’s a very exciting place to be.
I get involved quite often in trying to recruit young people, but you have struck on one of the issues we have. As well, the public service is too hierarchical in terms of decision-making. There has to be an ability for a public servant with an idea in one department to be able to share that with others. We are doing a lot of that on the digital side, but we have a lot of work to do.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: Thank you, Minister, for appearing before our committee today. Just like me, a lot of people think that public service employees benefit from particularly good benefits, as compared to those in the private sector, notably as it concerns sick leave. Many think that an employee can cash in his bank of sick leave days when he leaves his job, or that he can use sick leave that remains before he retires, even if he is in good health.
Could you briefly explain how the system works in the public service?
[English]
Mr. Brison: I may ask Jérôme or Sandra to assist with this, but I think there is both a perception and a reality of this. I prefer to focus on the reality in two ways. First, there’s the notion that somehow people are taking a lot more time. Again, there is some evidence from StatCan that shows otherwise. As Jérôme explained as well, there are people who are retiring in part because of health issues. That may lead to people taking sick leave for an extended period of time as a result of those health issues. Ultimately, they make the decision to take their retirement as well. That can create a perception.
[Translation]
Ms. Hassan: Madam senator, briefly, a full-time employee receives 1.25 days of sick leave per month. An employee who needs one or several days because he or she is sick may take those days. When the sick leave days have not been used at the end of the financial year, they are carried over into the next year, and so on.
At the end of his career if an employee has had the good fortune of being in good health, he or she will have weeks and months of unused sick leave, and those days are simply lost when they leave. If a person asks for leave for a few days, for instance because of the flu or a broken bone, he will use his sick leave days. Afterwards, after 13 weeks, the long-term disability insurance system will kick in. The number of days remaining in an employee’s account at the end of his public service career in normal circumstances depends on the state of his health. A person who has cancer, has had a heart attack or a stroke, will unfortunately have to take more sick leave than a person who enjoys good health.
Senator Bellemare: May I ask an additional question?
The Chair: You may ask it during the second round.
Mr. Mercier: I’d like to add a small clarification regarding your question. Sick leave days that have not been used at the end of a public service career cannot be paid out. As I mentioned earlier, among the 6,200 public servants who retired in 2015-16, there were 105 days in their sick day bank when they left their job. Those days could not be cashed in.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Minister, the Public Accounts were released last week. As you were speaking, I was thinking about the liabilities and government expenditures. What impact will this bill have on the government’s financial statements?
Mr. Brison: The previous government had booked $700 million at that time. We reversed that early on. This bill won’t have that impact in terms of the $700 million that was booked. From an Auditor General’s perspective, we thought that was the responsible thing to do early on.
Senator Marshall: So there will be no further adjustments to the Public Accounts?
Mr. Brison: That is my understanding in terms of the Public Accounts.
Mr. Mercier: To add some precision, the amounts that were presented in Budget 2015 were projected savings for the purposes of the fiscal outlook. When the government committed to repeal section 20, Part 3, of the economic action plan, and when it also committed to return the question to collective bargaining at the bargaining table, the projected savings were removed from the fiscal outlook. But it was never booked into the Public Accounts per se.
Mr. Brison: We made that clear. Very early on, Minister Morneau made our intention clear in terms of not booking or considering the $700 million as part of our fiscal framework.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: The previous government had made cuts to sick leave banks, if I understand correctly?
[English]
Mr. Brison: It was in the Budget Implementation Act to eliminate it. They built the $700 million savings as part of their fiscal outlook, which contributed about half of the budget surplus that was projected just prior to the election, in that fiscal period.
Senator Moncion: But then it never came into force, so all the employees’ sick days banked are intact and there’s been an accumulation over the years?
[Translation]
Ms. Hassan: Madam senator, you’re quite correct. The Budget Implementation Act included an opportunity for the Treasury Board of Canada to impose a sick leave regime. What is in the bill being studied at this time is a repeal of those provisions. The President of the Treasury Board of Canada has never exercised that power to impose a regime. In fact, as soon as he took up his position, he committed to returning to the previous regime and to negotiating this matter with union representatives. The sick leave banks which existed in 2015 remained intact, to the extent that people did not use their sick days.
[English]
Mr. Brison: On a small but important point in terms of intentions, the previous government banked the savings but they never accounted for any cost of what would have to replace it. You are not going to eliminate a sick leave program, but they banked it as if they would not bring in any replacement. That wouldn’t really pass muster to an Auditor General. They were very motivated to bank the savings, but in their accounting they never accounted for the cost of what a modernized sick leave system would be. For instance, I mentioned young people. There will be areas as we reform and modernize the sick leave system — I have to stop saying “sick leave” and say “the wellness system” because I think that’s what it should be focused on — where we will actually be investing more in certain areas, particularly around areas of mental health. There is a cost to this regardless. You can’t just ignore that. The previous government did not even account for having a sick leave program to replace what they were eliminating.
Senator Pratte: I just want to follow up on what Mr. Duggan was explaining earlier. I want to understand exactly what happened before the omnibus bill of the previous government that provided the government the authority to decide essential services unilaterally. There were agreements, obviously, in force on essential services. Once the omnibus bill was adopted, did the government use this new authority? Did departments decide on their own what the essential services were? Did that produce an increase in essential services postings, or was it basically, even though the authority existed, it was status quo whereby there were discussions and both parties agreed on what the essential services were?
Mr. Duggan: Once the bill came into force, departments proceeded in working with our officials at the secretariat to actually designate employees. In some cases, there were more employees designated than had previously been designated. One of the issues previously was the fact that there weren’t that many essential services agreements that had been concluded. That’s a function of the fact that when you are engaged in these processes, if you get a settlement on essential services agreement, the strike group didn’t have a sense of urgency about them, so they just rolled over. Over a longer period of time, we didn’t conclude that many agreements. If I remember correctly, we had six or seven in total over the years for which those particular provisions had been in force, and that was since 2005. But when this particular legislation came in, because of its nature and the unilateral nature of the provisions, we actually proceeded to do a lot of those.
Senator Pratte: Just to follow up, could we expect some kind of change in different departments where, after negotiation, there would be a decrease in the number of posts for essential services?
Mr. Duggan: I hesitate to speculate, but the nature of negotiations would suggest that we will all have to modify our expectations.
Senator Pratte: Thank you.
Mr. Brison: It’s difficult, and you don’t want to prejudge. You want to have a legitimate discussion. The nature of essential services will change over time, but it is something we want to negotiate as opposed to impose.
The Chair: Thank you. Honourable minister, with your indulgence, I have a question to ask. I’ll be succinct also.
At the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Human Resources and Social Development, Chris Aylward, now the President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said that certain sections of Bill C-62 are inconsistent with the 2015 Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling on the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour’s challenge to the province’s Public Service Essential Services Act, paragraph 121(2)(a).
In your view, is Bill C-62, in particular, paragraphs 121(2)(a), 123(6)(a) and 127(6)(a), consistent with the Supreme Court on that Saskatchewan Federation of Labour decision?
Mr. Brison: I’m informed the clause in question played a minor role in the court’s analysis of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour decision. As well, that clause had existed in the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act since 2005 and had never been challenged. I’m comfortable with it. We believe the deletion of this clause could create operational hazards and, in certain areas, supervisors or managers wouldn’t be able to complete the essential duties in cases where this work is very specialized and management may not be trained or licensed to do the work. Again, the clause to which Mr. Aylward was referring had been in the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act in Canada since 2005 and had not been challenged. I believe it will not be an issue now.
Again, as part of the legislative process, we look forward to your analysis of this as legislators, but it has been in place since 2005 and was not challenged.
The Chair: Again, minister, thank you for your availability. Before I declare the meeting adjourned, do you have any final comments or closing remarks?
Mr. Brison: I thought there was a certain level of irony earlier today when Percy Mockler was telling Scott Brison to be brief. We are politicians from Atlantic Canada, Percy, and the idea of us being able to be brief —
I want to thank honourable senators. It’s always a pleasure, and I look forward to coming back on other issues. I think I will be back on estimates soon. Thank you very much. It’s always a pleasure. Thank you for the work you do on behalf of Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
(The committee adjourned.)