OGGO Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

0910

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.))

Ms. Arlene Wortsman (Director, Labour Studies, Canadian Labour Market and Labour Productivity Centre (changed to Canadian Labour and Business Centre))

0915

Ms. Judy Sgro

Ms. Lise Poulin (Secretary General, "Confédération des syndicats nationaux")

0920

0925

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Martha Hynna (Former Assistant Deputy Minister (HRDC), Consultant, Hynna Report on Staffing, As Individual)

0930

0935

0940

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Arlene Wortsman

Mr. Ken Epp

0945

Ms. Arlene Wortsman

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. François Lamoureux (Lawyer, Sauvé et Roy (Justice Section CSN), "Confédération des syndicats nationaux")

0950

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Mr. François Lamoureux

0955

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Claude Rioux ("Confédération des syndicats nationaux")

1000

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. François Lamoureux

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Arlene Wortsman

1005

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Arlene Wortsman

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Martha Hynna

1010

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Ken Epp

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. François Lamoureux

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Claude Rioux

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

1015

Ms. Arlene Wortsman

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Arlene Wortsman

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Martha Hynna

1020

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Martha Hynna

Ms. Arlene Wortsman

Ms. Martha Hynna

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Martha Hynna

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Martha Hynna

Ms. Arlene Wortsman

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Judy Sgro

1025

Ms. Martha Hynna

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Martha Hynna

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. François Lamoureux

1030

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Claude Rioux

1035

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Martha Hynna

1040

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lise Poulin

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. François Lamoureux

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. François Lamoureux

1045

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. François Lamoureux

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. François Lamoureux

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Martha Hynna

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

M. Dick Proctor

Ms. Lise Poulin

Mr. François Lamoureux

Mr. Claude Rioux

1050

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Martha Hynna

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

1055

Mr. François Lamoureux

Ms. Lise Poulin

Mr. François Lamoureux

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Lise Poulin

Mr. François Lamoureux

Ms. Lise Poulin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

1100

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Ms. Lise Poulin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Claude Rioux

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Claude Rioux

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 015

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

The order of the day is Bill C-25, an act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service, to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We have with us this morning representatives from the Canadian Labour and Business Centre, the Confederation of National Trade Unions, and Martha Hynna, former assistant deputy minister, HRDC.

We are going to start with the Canadian Labour and Business Centre's opening remarks. Anywhere between five and seven minutes would be preferable so we have ample time for questions from members.

Ms. Arlene Wortsman (Director, Labour Studies, Canadian Labour Market and Labour Productivity Centre (changed to Canadian Labour and Business Centre)): Thank you very much, and good morning.

My name is Arlene Wortsman. I'm the director of labour studies at the Canadian Labour and Business Centre.

The CLBC is an independent, joint business-labour organization that seeks to improve labour and business practices in Canada and to provide public policy advice on labour market and skills issues. We've been around since 1984, when the centre was established as the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre.

Our board of directors is made up of equal numbers of business and labour leaders, who come from different regions of Canada and from different sectors of the economy. Our current co-chairs are Perrin Beatty, from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, and Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

We focus on issues that are of concern to our constituencies. Much of our work takes the form of applied research into real-life practices and programs in Canadian workplaces and organizations. Our focus has been on employment skills and workplace issues.

Today I'd like to share with you the findings of some of our research in a number of areas that I believe are relevant to this bill. The information may help you to set a context for your deliberations. I would then like to offer some observations on certain sections of the proposed legislation. However, I do not intend to address those elements of the bill that focus on the collective bargaining process. Rather, I would like to address those aspects that will help to support a healthy workplace for all employees of the federal government.

Let me start with our “Viewpoints” research. Since 1996 the Canadian Labour and Business Centre has conducted a national survey of business and labour leaders, seeking their views on a number of issues. The Viewpoints survey is done every two years, with the most recent in 2002. At that time we surveyed almost 1,200 business and labour leaders on challenges facing the economy, skill shortages, healthy workplace practices, and the state of labour-management relations. I'd like to give you some of the highlights that may have some applications for you today.

First, let me talk about the skill shortages. Our Viewpoints survey has been tracking this issue since 1996. There has been a significant increase in levels of concern among all four of our target communities, managers and labour leaders in both the public and private sectors.

The dramatic increase in the perception of the issue as a serious problem is in part because most workplaces are experiencing a significant increase in the retirement of co-workers. This is a result of an aging workforce as well as a tendency for many employees to retire earlier. We asked respondents to estimate the percentage of their workforce that will retire in the next five years. A third of private sector managers believe 10% to 25% of their workforce will retire during the next five years. However, in the public sector 52% of public sector managers believe that up to a quarter of their workforce will retire during the next five years. The age of the public sector workforce in many cases is older due to hiring freezes imposed for much of the previous decade. This is consistent across Canada, not just in the federal public service.

Although our Viewpoints survey did identify a significant level of concern among those surveyed, it is important to make clear that replacement of these workers is not a given. We asked managers and labour leaders what percentage of retiring workers are expected to be replaced. Fourteen percent of public sector managers believed that fewer than 50% would be replaced. Labour leaders saw it differently: 32% believed that 50% of retiring workers would be replaced.

In the same survey we asked a number of questions regarding labour-management relations. Labour leaders have a considerably more negative view of how labour-management relations have changed from 2000 to 2002; 56% of public sector labour leaders said labour-management relations had deteriorated.

Viewpoints respondents were asked how they saw labour-management relations changing over the next two years; that would be 2002 to 2004. Managers are generally more optimistic than labour leaders about the short term of labour-management relations, and this is consistent with our past surveys. In 2000, 36% of labour leaders expect a worsening of labour-management relations over the coming two years, but by 2002, 60% of labour leaders held this view.

Growing pessimism is also evident among public sector managers. The percentage of public sector managers expecting labour-management relations to worsen has increased from 28% in 2000 to 42%.

The importance of good labour-management relations is evident in its association with good workplace performance and the well-being of employees. In the 2002 Viewpoint survey managers and labour leaders were asked how 12 key measures of workplace performance had changed over the past two years. These measures included productivity, recruitment, retention, injuries, and worker motivation. In virtually every performance measure, among managers and labour leaders alike, those who said labour-management relations had improved over the past two years were more likely to say performance had also increased.

While Viewpoint's data is based on perceptions of managers and labour leaders rather than hard numbers, what makes the findings compelling and credible is the consistency of the response among managers and labour leaders alike. These two groups may disagree on the current state of labour-management relations, but they do agree that when relations improve, so does workplace performance.

Given the concern about an older workforce, efforts to improve productivity or to retain and attract skilled workers will not be helped by a fractious industrial relations environment. One of the contributing factors to good labour-management relations is a healthy workplace.

In 1999 almost half of all Canadian public servants considered their workload not reasonable most of the time. Our Viewpoints survey highlighted this issue as well: 59% of managers and 84% of labour leaders said stress levels in the workplace had increased. There were increases in absenteeism and a decline in worker morale.

Recent studies, including one by the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service, highlight the difficulties many public servants are having. APEX reported that mental and health disorders were the fastest-growing category for claims under the disability insurance plan for federal employees.

Here's a final word on our survey. Both management and labour leaders, when asked what is responsible for declining workplace health, pointed to increased workloads, poor communication and trust, poor work and family balance, and reduced employee influence.

So how does this relate to the legislation before you for study? It's been our experience that employees who feel they have a greater say in how they perform their duties, who are given the necessary skills, and who feel they have greater control over their work have a greater sense of commitment, which translates into greater productivity, less absenteeism, and fewer grievances.

In my final few minutes let me make a few observations on the proposed changes. There are many positive features in the bill. There appears to be a greater emphasis on consultation and in some cases co-development of solutions. The employer, the federal government in this case, and its unions can agree to co-develop workplace improvements. This means managers and union representatives can jointly identify workplace problems and, more importantly, address solutions to these problems together. Greater emphasis on more flexible methods to resolve conflict should help to reduce conflict in the workplace.

Recognition of the National Joint Council in the legislation is an important step to enhancing the credibility as a forum to exchange views. However, the National Joint Council could be more effective if there were some security of funding. The National Joint Council could be used in a creative fashion to help defuse conflict and even explore creative solutions.

The new Public Service Labour Relations Board will have a mandate to provide compensation, research, and analysis, something that has been requested by a number of unions and researchers such as myself for some time.

And finally, I believe the new institution of learning, the Canada School of Public Service, has the potential to be critical in the development and maintenance of a skilled workforce. The federal government's own innovation strategy stresses the need for skill development and training for all employees. Training at all levels must be an integral part of workforce planning. We know from our research that many younger employees seek those jobs that provide them with opportunities to renew skills or even develop new skill sets.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to share some of our research with you. The Canadian Labour and Business Centre has for the past 19 years promoted a joint approach to workplace and human resource questions. As the world of work becomes more complex and fast-paced, we believe this to be of even greater importance.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

¿ (0915)

Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you very much, Ms. Wortsman.

Who would like to go next? Ms. Poulin.

[Translation]

Ms. Lise Poulin (Secretary General, "Confédération des syndicats nationaux"): Thank you, Madam Chair.

On behalf of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux and the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, we would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to explain our point of view regarding Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act.

The Confédération des syndicats nationaux has more than 2,700 members who belong to nine professional federations and 2,700 work places, that is to say 2,700 unions. These unions are not only present within every sector of economic activity in the Province of Quebec, but also in the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick, particularly in the communications, transportation and milling-related industries, which sectors fall under federal jurisdiction with regard to industrial relations.

The Union and the CSN's interest in the current process is informed by the principle that the federal legislation governing industrial relations in the public service make it as easy as possible for the workers covered by it to have access to union representation, as well as to favour the complete exercise of collective bargaining rights and to ensure that federal public service workers enjoy the same rights as those that are recognized for other workers in Canada.

Although the CSN has only been involved in industrial relations at the federal level for two years, that is since the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers was certified, from the outset, it got involved in the work of the Task Force on the Modernization of Human Resources Management, by submitting a brief to it and taking part in discussions with the group.

In addition, when the Fryer Report, as it is commonly called, appeared, the CSN welcomed many of its recommendations, emphasizing the committee's effort to give new impetus to industrial relations, to redefine and create more balanced institutions, to give union organizations a more effective voice and to promote greater employer involvement in results-based accountability.

Amongst the many elements that drew our attention and that we believed essential for truly improving the federal industrial relations system in the public service, allow us to cite the following points which we have noted in our brief.

Labour legislation dealing with the federal public service must be compatible with the principles that are part of the Canada Labour Code. The Canada Industrial Relations Board must be empowered to implement the remedies that are stipulated in the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The Canada Industrial Relations Board must be empowered to deal with disputes concerning essential services and this in accordance with the criteria that are stipulated in the Canada Labour Code. Unions must have a larger role to play with respect to the management of grievances in such a way as to recognize the collective nature of industrial relations and the preeminent position that unions occupy in the realm of industrial relations in Canada. The various bodies responsible for hearing these matters, whether in the area of staffing issues or that of disputes, must be constituted, with regard to how its members are appointed, in a similar fashion to how members of the Canada Industrial Relations Board are appointed under the aegis of the Canada Labour Code. Codetermination must form the basis of the institutional framework of industrial relations, including the pension plan and its administration, as is the case in most private or public companies, under both provincial and federal jurisdictions.

In our view, the consensus that emerged among members of the Fryer Commission is a major piece of reform and shows that it is necessary to proceed with in-depth changes.

In what follows, we are going to examine more specific subjects. It is remarkable that the preamble to the Labour Relations Act does not affirm recognition of the freedom of association and free collective bargaining as the basis of labour relations. That recognition, which the Canada Labour Code confirms in its preamble, must appear in the Act. Of course, serving and protecting the public interest are highly important. However, the preamble would be more balanced if it included a statement similar to that contained in the Canada Labour Code.

We submit that the Public Service Employment Act should promote negotiation of the internal appointment process, that the duties and responsibilities of positions should be based on a sound assessment of candidates' qualifications and seniority in order to maximize the objectivity of those appointments, and that the unions, as the bill provides, should be consulted in the development of qualification standards, although a joint process would clearly have been desirable.

Lastly, we welcome the involvement of the Public Service Staff Relations Board in remedies regarding involuntary transfers and the rules of the health and safety section of the Canada Labour Code.

¿ (0920)

The collective bargaining system is a major part of any labour relations system. Based on a strong legislative framework, the federal public service bargaining regime must restore a broad degree of independence to the unions and the employer, with regard to both means and negotiable domains.

Those domains should cover all conditions of employment : classification, social benefits, pensions, working hours, mechanism for union-management participation in the implementation of collective agreements, pension plan administration and occupational health and safety, to name only a few.

We believe that the act must be empowering and based on the notion of co-development in the Fryer Report. In particular, we suggest, in that perspective, that a joint commission be established to administer the pension plan, to enable the proposed method of bargaining at two levels to take effect in a service such as the Correctional Service and to review dispute arbitration in dead-end situations.

In this respect, we invite you to adopt the Fryer Report's recommendation on the public interest dispute settlement commission. The credibility of that commission must be ensured through the means of action it is empowered to take and its interdependence and power to intervene. Bill C-25 is distinctly insufficient in this regard.

We therefore invite you to take a close look at the comments we make on this in our brief. It is important to point out that it is absolutely necessary to strike a balance in relations and bargaining, particularly for groups of workers which, in some other activities, may not fully exercise their right to strike under the act. In one recommendation, the Fryer Commission advances a major initiative designed to give those workers greater control over their right to actually take part in the negotiation of their terms and conditions of work and employment and their wages.

As for the role and obligations conferred or imposed, as the case may be, on union organizations, we assert, first of all, that the unions must be the only bodies responsible for both individual and group grievances.

We would recall that this practice is recognized in the labour relations system in Canada and that it has been confirmed by the courts on a number of occasions. It is an essential function in ensuring the proper operation of the grievance system.

In addition, we believe that the Canadian Human Rights Commission must rule on any complaint submitted to it. Lastly, we emphasize that the adjudicators should be authorized to award interest, as is done in a number of jurisdictions, but the awarding of moral damages should also be permitted.

Lastly, I think it necessary that grievances concerning abusive or discriminatory acts be brought before an impartial tribunal. We do not agree, any more than we did in the debate on changes to the Canada Labour Code, that the employer should be able to interfere in union responsibilities during negotiations on the employer's offers, particularly regarding votes.

In conclusion, we invite you to ensure that unfair practices are subject to broader wording. In addition, with regard to harassment, it would be appropriate to adopt the prohibition recently enacted in Quebec under the Labour Standards Act and to ensure, in the area of compensation research, that the Board provide balanced representation on the committee, by providing for a delegation consisting of equal numbers of persons from the unions and the academic world as well as from the employer.

We think it necessary that this reform afford an opportunity to ensure a genuine modernization of legislation on industrial relations between the Government of Canada, its employees and their unions so as to ensure more balanced relations and the interdependence of processes and to assert the freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, including the negotiation of essential service levels, and to promote the public interest.

To do this, Parliament must agree to follow the path laid out by the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Labour Management Relations and that it seize the opportunity to involve employees and unions to a greater degree in determining their terms and conditions of employment in training, participation, wage setting, career management and remedies.

Mr. Claude Rioux and Mr. François Lamoureux, who are here with me, will both be able to take part in any potential debate. Thank you.

¿ (0925)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Merci.

Now we'd like to hear from Madame Hynna.

Ms. Martha Hynna (Former Assistant Deputy Minister (HRDC), Consultant, Hynna Report on Staffing, As Individual): Thank you very much for inviting me to participate.

Just briefly, my qualifications are that I was in the public service for 30 years, half of it as an assistant deputy minister, in both line and corporate positions in a number of departments. Since retiring, I have been doing some consulting. I chair the Public Service Health Care Plan Trust and was appointed there by the employer, the unions, and the Federal Superannuates Association. I have also served as a member of the Fryer advisory committee on labour-management relations in the federal public service.

I understand that I've been asked to appear before you primarily because of my experience heading the consultative review of staffing on behalf of the Public Service Commission in 1996. I'll be addressing my comments to that part of the bill that deals with the Public Service Employment Act--in other words, staffing.

I propose to tell you a little bit about the consultative review of staffing, as outlined in our report entitled A New Framework For Staffing. I've left a copy with your clerk. I don't think it's in print any more, but feel free to make any copies of it if you wish.

What I want to do then is draw some conclusions about staffing and compare them to the provisions of Bill C-25.

As a general statement, in some important respects the provisions of Bill C-25 are consistent with results of the consultative review, and I support them. However, there are also some inconsistencies, one of which is very important, in my estimation.

On the consultative review of staffing, I was asked by the commissioners to undertake a review of the staffing process in 1996. Our objective was to try to reach an agreement on a new vision or direction for the type of staffing system the public service of the future would need. With this in mind, we undertook a major consultation with the various people and organizations concerned--that is, the commission, the employer, Treasury Board, current and recently retired deputy ministers, managers, HR specialists, employees, and the unions. We talked to over 900 people individually or in workshops or focus groups. What we tried to do was develop a participative process where the various interests would together develop the direction for a future staffing system, rather than one where I or a small team would draft up some ideas and then see what kind of reaction we got.

A key part of the consultation was a conference of 50 executives, managers, and human resource experts at various levels and from a variety of departments, central agencies, and all regions of the country, as well as representatives from the major bargaining agents. Together we built a vision of a new approach to staffing in the public service. It's important to note that we were able to develop a consensus on this vision despite the differences in our interests and our positions on many of the issues.

We then took the results of that conference and tested them in focus groups across the country. Based on what we heard, we put together our report, which set out some conclusions and raised a number of issues that would have to be dealt with if it were decided to move to the proposed approach.

What we ended up with was a broad framework or direction only. We made no attempt to fill in the details. I understand that our report was one of the working documents of the task force on modernizing human resources management, which led to Bill C-25.

The conclusions of the review were, first, it was very clear that neither managers nor employees were satisfied with the current staffing approach, which continues today. Managers found it frustrating, time-consuming, focused on whether or not a decision could be successfully appealed, not on whether they were getting the best person for the job, and something to be avoided whenever possible. Employees did not trust the system to deliver a fair result.

The consultative review came to the conclusion that there were four areas for change that were essential to establishing the kind of staffing system necessary for the public service to meet the challenges of the future.

The first area was that the system must be based on values rather than on rules and processes. The values we referred to were such things as merit, political impartiality, fairness, representativeness, transparency, diversity, and so on. We said they should be established by legislation. We said a system based on values would require the secure knowledge that decision-makers understood and accepted these values and that they are held accountable when they fail to act in accordance with them.

The system should not try to transfer the values into specific rules and processes that would be applied across the public service. To do so would shift the focus of decision-makers toward the process and away from the values themselves. Because rules are by definition more rigid, they would hamper the ability of decision-makers to judge how to balance competing values and make the best decision for all concerned.

¿ (0930)

I think Bill C-25 is largely consistent with this conclusion. The preamble sets out a number of values in its various paragraphs. The only value of importance that does not appear is that of transparency. Employees insisted that for an appointment process to be seen to be fair, the manager must be very clear from the beginning about the qualifications expected, the standards that will be applied, who is eligible to be considered, and the basis upon which the decision will be made. I would add a reference to transparency to the preamble, along with the other values referred to.

The bill then provides for the commission to establish policies respecting the manner of making and revoking appointments and taking corrective action, in subclause 29(3). I hope that any such public-service-wide policies would be very broad and reflect or clarify the values, without getting into details about how the process should be applied in specific situations. It should be for the deputy ministers, under their delegated authority, to establish the policies and practices to be followed in their departments, and there must be room for these to vary by situation, region, and occupation.

The second area of change was around accountability. The conclusion of the consultative review was that deputy ministers, and through them managers, should be held directly responsible and accountable for all internal staffing within the framework of values, as discussed above. The PSC would have the responsibility for stewardship of the values framework, and oversight of the implementation of the system.

We believe that under the current system it is too easy for managers to think that the PSC or HR specialists are responsible for what happens in staffing. Giving deputies and managers more ownership of the processes would create a greater sense of responsibility for their actions. We also suggested that the PSC retain direct accountability for initial appointments to the public service.

Under Bill C-25, the Public Service Commission retains direct authority for all staffing, with authority to delegate nearly all of these authorities to deputies. In other words, our recommendations weren't fully adopted. On the other hand, the preamble specifically does refer to the concept that delegation of authority should be to as low a level as possible, and should afford managers the flexibility to staff, manage, and lead their personnel to achieve results for Canadians.

The deputies also have a greater role to play in the redress system than under the current regime. While these provisions do not go as far as was envisaged by the consultative review, they are an improvement over the current situation. But it will be important for the employer and the PSC to constantly reinforce and emphasize the accountability deputies have in this area.

The third area is related to co-developed processes. This is where the proposed act is seriously lacking, in my estimation. The consultative review called for co-development of the policies and practices with the legally constituted representatives of the employees, the bargaining agents. We believe that the reason for the lack of trust by employees in the existing system lies in the fact that it's perceived as a system designed exclusively by managers for managers.

Employees and their representatives wanted a system that generated more cooperation and less confrontation, both in its daily use and in any efforts to change or improve it, where these were necessary. They did not think the type of consultation that often takes place, where they are asked their views on a package that has been developed behind closed doors, was adequate. They indicated they wanted to be a part of the development of the system. They wanted to participate at both the government-wide level, where the broad framework is developed, and the departmental level, where more specific practices and processes are put in place.

The conclusion of the consultative review was that this participation was an absolutely essential part of the total package that we were proposing. If you are to have a values-based system without rigid rules it must be based on trust that the system is fair and effective. To have trust you must have an agreement on the values and a shared ownership of the processes that are put in place to reflect these values. Under a system that is seen to be imposed by management without the participation and agreement of the bargaining agents, it will be difficult to overcome employees' concerns about fairness.

The bill not only does not call for co-development of staffing processes, or what it called the policies concerning the manner of making and revoking appointments and taking corrective action, it doesn't even require consultation with the bargaining agents. This is in subclause 29(3). This is a particularly glaring omission, given that the employer, Treasury Board, is required to consult with the bargaining agents with respect to deployments, the period of probation, and a number of other issues under its purview.

The commission is also required to consult the bargaining agents with respect to principles governing layoffs or priorities for appointment. But as I said, it's not required to consult on the basic issue of the policies and practices for setting up the staffing system.

¿ (0935)

I understand that the issue of co-development as compared to consultation was debated at considerable length as this bill was being prepared. Obviously it was decided not to go with a requirement for co-development of solutions to workplace issues at this time. Rather, the bill provides a discretionary power to the employer and deputies to engage in co-development under clause 10 of the proposed Public Service Labour Relations Act.

I do not agree with this conclusion. I think co-development can work very well. However, if it is decided not to require co-development with respect to staffing, at the very least the same requirements for consultation that are being imposed on Treasury Board and the commission for other matters must be imposed on the commission and the deputy ministers for development of policies concerning the manner of making and revoking appointments and taking corrective action.

Finally, the fourth area of change that the consultative review of staffing saw was necessary was with regard to redress. Appropriate redress goes hand in hand with accountability. In this respect I won't go into the details, but the proposed bill is very much in line with what was said in our report.

We also dealt with the issue of the merit principle, not as a conclusion but as another part of the report. We said that given the strong concern of employees about managerial favouritism, where more than one employee is qualified for appointment a fair process requires that some transparent standard be applied for deciding which among these employees will in fact be appointed.

However, the decision need not hinge on who is the most meritorious. In other words, once it has been determined which candidates have the necessary knowledge and abilities, other criteria could be considered in determining which of the qualified candidates was actually appointed. The provisions of the proposed bill are consistent with this conclusion, as long as the value of transparency is reflected in any staffing action.

Before I conclude, I'd also like to make a very brief reference to the Fryer committee report, insofar as it deals with staffing. As I indicated, I was a member of that committee. I understand that John Fryer will be appearing before you to talk more fully about the report and its recommendations. I would just like to say now that the Fryer report also called for co-development of staffing policies at the service-wide departmental and workplace levels.

Having spoken to my colleagues, I know that they were equally concerned about the omission from this bill of the requirement to consult, let alone co-develop the manner of making and revoking appointments under subclause 29(3).

In summary, the proposed new public service employment act reflects to a considerable extent the conclusions of the consultative review of staffing. It should be remembered also that those conclusions in turn reflect the ideas of a cross-section of stakeholders in the system.

However, I do have some concerns. I would like to see the value of transparency added to the preamble. I would also have preferred direct delegation of authority to appoint to deputy ministers, rather than through the Public Service Commission. But my greatest concern is the fact that the new act does not require co-development or even consultation with the bargaining agents on the policies and processes that will be put in place to actualize the act. This to me is a very serious flaw.

Thank you very much. I'll be happy to respond to any questions.

¿ (0940)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for being here.

I have been involved with staff relations and employer and employee relationships pretty well all of my life, and have found it to be a very fascinating process.

I would like to begin with Ms. Wortsman. You indicate that management and labour relationships have deteriorated. How did you come to that conclusion? As nearly as I could tell from your presentation it was simply a survey of people, and some percentage said it had deteriorated. But what criteria did you use on the actual deterioration of the relationship between them, specifically with the public service?

Ms. Arlene Wortsman: The survey is one we do every two years. It is sent to business and labour leaders across the country, so it is based on their perception, and we recognize that. It includes the public and private sectors, and when we talk about the public sector we talk about a very broad interpretation, as opposed to limiting it to just the federal level. So it would take in provincial governments, hospitals, school boards.

At the time this survey was administered, which was about a year ago this time--the spring of 2002--there were a number of potential strikes and negotiations going on. Those obviously coloured their perspective at the time. We recognize that, so part of it is tracking over a period from 1996 to see how impressions are. It's not scientific. Polling isn't completely scientific. It is an impression. But because these are the leadership positions whose views are being sought, it has implications in terms of how the relationships develop, and it often is determined by the context at the time.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have some contact with different employer-employee relationships even now. Well, I shouldn't say even now, but I'm still connected with a lot of people who do this type of thing. I'm quite a firm believer that these things are cyclical. There's a time when things are going really nicely, and then some things happen and it's sort of like an infection. It affects others who weren't directly involved, but they see how their co-worker is being treated and that brings their morale down. Ms. Hynna also mentioned the idea of morale as being very important. But then when those things are fixed up, it tends to go back up again.

So it is a cyclical thing, and I'm not sure that in a bill like Bill C-25 we can do anything, really, that would legislate things like morale and that sense of well-being.

Now, maybe I'm wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong.

¿ (0945)

Ms. Arlene Wortsman: Well, you're probably right that you can't legislate well-being. But one of the reasons I talked about some of the things I talked about was, for instance, in the same survey, one of the most interesting findings, particularly on labour, was that the levels of stress had increased astronomically, and that has to do with how they view what is happening in their workplaces.

So we have a sense... and we also have anecdotal evidence from a number of case studies we've done in applied settings, where people talk about their workload, the kinds of pressures that are on them, the discussions about work-life balance and the fact that they feel they have no control over their work.

So there were some of the discussions that have taken place here about the ability to be involved in how things are set, the notion of co-determination. Rather than being outside of it and having decisions given to them, there's a sense that people want to be engaged. These are issues you can't legislate within a bill, but you can put in place an environment that will help ease some of the tensions there.

We have discovered that when you improve a number of these measures, the conflict levels go down.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, to Ms. Poulin, if I may, what you're talking about is that promotions should be based on fair criteria. One of the things we have observed is that from time to time the federal government posts openings in the civil service, but they say things like “Only people in the Ottawa region may apply.” Then people who live outside the region say that's not a fair criterion. Is that the type of thing you're talking about? What specifically were you referring to when you talked about fair criteria for promotions and appointments?

[Translation]

Mr. François Lamoureux (Lawyer, Sauvé et Roy (Justice Section CSN), "Confédération des syndicats nationaux"): Affiliation: Mr. François Lamoureux, Lawyer, Sauvé et Roy (Justice Section, CSN) — source: reply from the Verification Centre to a request. I would like to go back and explain what Ms. Hynna said about staffing and promotions.

Of course, as Ms. Hynna emphasized, in a staff relations framework, it's hoped that union associations can take part in all decisions concerning the public service, among others those concerning staffing, promotion, transfer and manpower training issues so that, in a genuine staff relations climate, we can have harmonious staff relations and the parties feel involved in those processes.

So, in the case of appointments, management and union associations should be consulted so that the parties together can develop a well-structured process and shared criteria. To the extent possible, there should be a sharing of all criteria or decisions that are developed through a joint effort in order to promote the most harmonious relations possible. That's what the CSN recommends so that criteria, for example, are developed in the least discriminatory and arbitrary manner possible.

For example, in staffing, when the decision is made to favour the most deserving people, that's a criterion that can be quite abstract and subjective. That kind of criterion should be avoided as much as possible. You have to try to develop a mix of criteria such as experience, seniority and qualifications to ensure that people in the Public Service of Canada don't get the impression that, over their heads, there is always a kind of sword of Damocles of favouritism in appointments and staffing. Many Canadians think there is always favouritism in the federal public service.

So you have to avoid that kind of thinking, which exists virtually across Canada, the idea that there are no clear, well set out and shared rules. When the parties take part in developing these criteria, that avoids all subsequent disputes, antagonisms and perversion of staff relations.

That's what the CSN favours when it talks about criteria that are as undiscriminatory as possible in the staffing or appointments process. That's the direction we want to go in.

¿ (0950)

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: My time is up, but I still would like to know, just yes or no, do you think it's wrong to have a regional criterion based on where you live when asking for appointments to positions? Surely that must be wrong. You must agree with that, as a union.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Oui or non?

That's all the time we have. Okay, we'll pick it up on the next round.

Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Ken Epp: All right, be sure to get back to me.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): I'm going to take over, Mr. Epp.

I would like to continue on the question of staffing, recruitment and appointments. I would like to hear from you, Ms. Poulin or Mr. Lamoureux, on the very principle of this bill, in which the emphasis is entirely placed on merit. Lots of things are cast off and this is put in the hands of the deputy minister. Imagine what appointments will be like then. If someone doesn't have a line to the deputy minister, he may have problems for a very long time.

I would like to hear from you on that aspect. We're told that there's a form for those who want to question appointments, but there remain only two grounds for questioning, including abuse of power. You know what it is to plead abuse of power. As I told the Minister last time, I'm a lawyer and I know it's very difficult to argue abuse of power. You can try to prove a lot of other things, but abuse of power is very difficult to prove. So there remains that ground and another, which is the language used to evaluate the person. That's quite limited. What do you think? What recommendation are you going to make?

I didn't read it in your brief earlier. Madam Clerk, would it be possible for you to ask the witnesses to send you their briefs before the meeting? Today, I had to read the brief while the witnesses were speaking. I can only tell them what I think without knowing what they think. When I read the brief carefully after the meeting, they won't be here, and I won't be able to ask them questions.

Would it be possible for us always to have the briefs at least 24 hours in advance and for us all to have the briefs? We were told earlier that we had received only one brief. If I didn't ask that question, perhaps I wouldn't see Ms. Hynna's brief. I want to see Ms. Hynna's brief. When you receive briefs, have them translated if they're in only one language. I want to have a copy 24 hours in advance, please.

I would like to hear from you on the two points I've raised.

Mr. François Lamoureux: With regard to staffing by region or otherwise, I think it is essential that the criteria be developed jointly. And from the moment those criteria have been developed jointly, the parties will decide on their staffing process.

As to your remarks about merit, I say and I maintain that that's the worst way to do staff relations. The worst way to do staff relations in the country is to be directive. The worst way to do staff relations is to make it so people can't take part in the process, in staffing among other things.

Staffing on the basis of merit clearly promotes favouritism. Your assessment of an individual's merit in the performance of his duties compared to the merit of another individual is extremely subjective. So you have to try to award positions to the most qualified people and, where candidates are equally qualified, to those with the most seniority. I'll give you an example. You have two candidates who have roughly the same qualifications. You have someone with 25 years' seniority in the public service and someone else with five years' seniority in the public service. The two have the same academic qualifications, but one has 20 years more experience than the other in the public service. That has to count for something. You also have to recognize work performed in the public service. You can't just rely on the arbitrary criterion of merit because that can create a poor staff relations climate. There will inevitably be dissatisfied people who challenge procedures, and that can poison the staff relations climate.

That's where we always put the emphasis. As we say in our brief, the preamble to this bill should be based on that of the Canada Labour Code in order to promote freedom of association and the right to bargain, harmonious relations and joint action. Staffing on the basis of merit does not promote joint action. It promotes confrontation. We are opposed to that confrontational approach which bases a whole part of the act's implementation on individual merit. As we said a moment ago, across the country, favouritism is seen as something that constantly exists in the public service.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I raise the question because I think it's one of the most important aspects of this bill. I believe there are good things in the bill. We are in favour of the principle of an amendment. We've been calling for change for years. However, it should not be forgotten that this is a bill, not a draft bill. You represent the workers. If this notion of merit which is imposed is not subject to amendments designed to promote joint action, will that be sufficient for workers to completely reject this bill? What do you think of that as representatives of the workers?

Mr. Claude Rioux ("Confédération des syndicats nationaux"): We think we have to introduce a codetermination system as recommended in the Fryer Report. We made comments to the Quail Group, explaining that we thought that was a very good way to resolve these difficult questions. When everything is predetermined, people begin to feel frustrated. People don't feel empowered to do something. We said we had to have more flexibility to resolve that. You've raised a good question.

Staffing isn't a problem specific to the federal government. It's a problem everywhere. How is it solved everywhere? It's solved on the basis of qualifications, experience and seniority. There's a lot of case law and legal doctrine on this subject. There's everything you need to understand how to establish the most objective criteria possible with as little overlap as possible. We find it very hard to understand why it's not possible in this kind of organization to do something for unionized employees, something that would apply to the general scheme of the labour relations regime in Canada. There are virtually no collective agreements in which there's anything concerning the transfer and promotion system for taking into account knowledge, qualifications and years of service. That limits the legal action you spoke of, such as arguing abuse of power and things like that.

There are known criteria, which have been experimented with and analyzed. We should be able to agree on a mechanism with employers, with, among others, the Treasury Board or the agencies with which we have to deal, and to determine rules that could be very useful in a particular service. We represent correctional officers. Those people are all on the same footing to a certain degree. When they are evaluated for promotions or for transfers from one institution to another, how is that defined? People often want to transfer from one institution to another. Someone working in a maximum security penitentiary for years may want to be transferred to a medium security institution. In that case, there's a whole debate between the institutional heads. They say they want the person, that they don't want the person and so on. The system doesn't work. So you have to wonder whether the person has the necessary qualifications and meets more objective seniority criteria. Then you'll have a mechanism that's known to everyone and is transparent. Transparency is extremely important in corporate relations.

À (1000)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You know what the departments that drafted this bill answer. They say the criteria were in existence and that it's too long. The only criterion they want is to be able to go and get skilled people. They say to themselves that they have fewer and fewer of them because people are dissatisfied and leave. People leave the public service. The departments figure that, when they have to apply the specific criteria, it takes them six months or a year or even a year and a half to fill the position. That's what the departments answer us when we ask them the question. We're going to ask the same question and we're going to get the same answer. You tell us what you must, but, if we don't amend the act and there's no joint action... If we ask that there be criteria, they're going to answer us that they don't want any more criteria and that's why they're putting the emphasis on merit. You're going to have a big problem. I won't have any problems, but you'll have a big one because they're going to keep the notion of merit.

I would like you to look at the bill and to make specific recommendations to us. We're told that we're here to conduct a general study. No. The bill's in front of us. Make us some specific recommendations; otherwise you'll be stuck with a notion of merit that you don't want.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): A very, very short response.

[Translation]

^ç	On page 7 of our brief, we make the following recommendation:

We are in favour, particularly in the case of the internal appointment process, of having a combination of selection criteria that draw upon an evaluation of the candidates' qualifications, as well as upon their seniority in the federal public service. Accordingly, appointments would be made on a clearly more objective basis.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing here today, the first witnesses on this bill, Bill C-25.

My comments and questions are going to be with regard to the merit issue. I would like to start with some of the comments made by Ms. Wortsman.

In your opening comments you mentioned some surveys done in the public and private sector. Why is there such a shortfall in replacing this gap in the workplace that results from early retirement? You talked about an aging workforce. Is this any more prevalent in the public sector than private sector?

I ask the question because back home we all deal with employment and unemployment figures. It would lead one to believe it's as a result of decisions made internally not to replace workers. Of course, you're dealing with that whole middle section of the workforce. I'm sure all those people walking around looking for a job would love to be working, basically.

Again, is it any more prevalent in the public than it is in the private sector?

Ms. Arlene Wortsman: There's not a simple answer. There are a couple of reasons why this is so.

The public sector tends to have an older workforce, for the most part, because of decisions that had been imposed over the past several decades--the freezes. So in terms of replacement, there were fewer entrants coming in.

There is a tendency also in the public sector for retirement to be earlier. The average age of retirement in Canada is about 62 now, but in the public sector people are leaving earlier, once they hit that magic age when they get their pensions. This is also a function of how they're finding their workplaces.

The private sector had gone through a cycle a little bit earlier than the public sector. The other problem is that because of some of the issues you're going to cover through the course of these deliberations, the public sector, in many respects, has not been seen as employment of choice for many young people who want to come in.

The final point I would make on this is that it's very common to look at the unemployment figures and match them to the vacancy rates, but there's not necessarily a skill match. And as the nature of work changes very rapidly within all workplaces--but also, primarily, within the public sector--the skill levels have been ratcheting up also. Higher skill levels are being required. That skill mismatch is not an obvious connection to make; maybe there are special issues that need to be addressed in order to match that as well.

À (1005)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: From what I've been able to review of the bill--and I certainly haven't had an opportunity to review it in its entirety--there seem to be more robust safeguards in the bill with regard to the issue of merit, compared to how the situation is today. I was just wondering if you would agree with this view.

Ms. Arlene Wortsman: I don't think I can speak to that. It's a very large bill, which I also haven't had the opportunity to review in any great detail.

In terms of this specific issue, I think my colleagues here are probably better able to comment on it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Martha.

Ms. Martha Hynna: In looking at the bill, I think the issue of merit is a very difficult one. It's one that's been debated at great length, and certainly we spent a lot of time talking about it when I was in the public sector.

The problem is that it's almost impossible. To get “the most meritorious” is an impossible thing to do anyway. I would describe the current situation as somewhat of a fiction, to suggest you're getting “the most meritorious”.

First of all, going into a competition, it's limited to a certain group of people for practical reasons. The point was made that often a competition is limited geographically, but it can be limited by occupation or a number of things. So you limit the competition to start with.

Then you make your decision. Unfortunately, under merit, you tend to make the decision based on process. You go through a series of processes. Usually most of the decision is based on an interview, where you give marks for different questions.

I always say to people when they're staffing that there are two things that happen: there are people who are not good at doing interviews who don't get the job; and even worse, there are people who are good at doing interviews but not good at working. They may just be very glib talkers who get the job. You have to be very careful.

And a merit system focused on keeping track of numbers, and how your answer is, and how many points you get for this answer and that answer, often ends up being far too focused on “I want to get through this without an appeal” than “I want to get through this based on who's the best person”.

Quite honestly, we also played with the merit system. I played with the merit system. There's the issue of employment equity, diversity. There's the issue of having a more balanced workplace in terms of age, the issue of whether you want somebody who's in a development position moving through, seniority, and a whole bunch of other issues. I agree that in certain areas.... I don't think I'd go as far as my colleagues here in saying seniority should often be a factor, but in many cases seniority could be a good criterion, once you have the qualifications.

I think what the bill provides for, looking at qualifications and then setting standards after, being clear as to how you are going to pick the actual person based on some specific standards once you have qualified, probably reflects a much more realistic approach to staffing. I think that's part of what you do anyway, but you have this thing over here that says it's this or that.

I think the redress based on abuse of authority.... I was worried at first that this might be too narrow a form of redress, but there are already many decisions in the courts describing what abuse of authority is, and I think they're broad enough to avoid favouritism or having people make arbitrary decisions.

I think this will work better. It will reflect reality more. My assumption, though, is based on the fact that there would be joint development between management and employees of the system to be applied and the processes to be used in determining staffing actions, because employees also have a very important part to play. And this takes us back to the issue of how, if they haven't participated, then they assume it's not fair. If they've participated, they're much more likely to agree that it's a fair decision.

That's my view on merit.

À (1010)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay. Thank you very much.

I know Monsieur Lamoureux wants to speak to this point.

I would ask the indulgence of the committee. We've been wanting to get quorum this morning so we could pass a motion Mr. Epp had given notice of yesterday. It deals with the requirement of getting the Office of the Information Commissioner back before the committee today to deal with the supplementary estimates. There was essentially consensus yesterday by all members of the committee that this motion be passed. I'd ask Mr. Epp to put it on the table, so we could have an indication of support for the motion, and then we'll go right back to the questioning.

I'm doing it now because I don't think it's an issue of great debate. It would really be only a matter of a minute, just a quick time out, and I apologize to the witnesses.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, I move that the officials from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada be required to provide to this committee any and all information required to justify the new appropriation in supplementary estimate B in the amount of $311,000.

(Motion agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Thank you.

Monsieur Lamoureux.

[Translation]

Mr. François Lamoureux: I would like to add to what was said on staffing.

I would like to come back to the recommendation that the CSN made on that subject. For information purposes, I'm going to say that we could also adopt recommendation 5 of the Fryer Report, which appears on page 21. It reads as follows:

5. We recommend that the staffing system be made subject to co-development by the parties of the National Joint Council. To ensure that the co-development process respects core public service values, the Public Service Employment Act should be amended to include a list of values such as merit, employment equity, fairness and transparency with which the process must be consistent.

We would add seniority to those principles.

That might be a good way of amending the provisions on the choice of staffing process.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Monsieur Rioux.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Rioux: I would like to add that the report stated that, with regard to staffing, the Act should leave sufficient flexibility for implementation at the local level. Earlier I gave the example of interinstitutional transfers in the correctional system. Those are things that could be settled at the service level. The Act should specifically state that certain criteria may be applied locally. That's a very good suggestion.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

My first question is to Ms. Wortsman. You indicated that the CLBC believes there are many positive features in the proposed legislation. You did indicate a minor concern about the lack of secure funding for the national joint committee. Do you see any shortcomings in the bill as it's presented now?

À (1015)

Ms. Arlene Wortsman: That's a small open-ended question.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Let me be more specific then. You also focused a lot of your time on the need for healthy workplace practices. You said that the Viewpoint survey indicated that a lot of business and labour leaders thought that perhaps there would be as few as 50% hires of employees who retired. I'm just wondering how all of this leads to healthy workplace practices and to reasonable workloads.

Ms. Arlene Wortsman: Let me be clear. When I agreed to come and present here it wasn't specifically to deal with this piece of legislation—although it is an important piece of work. What we offer as an organization is help in providing some context. We do an awful lot of work with workplaces in both the public and private sectors right across the country. So we can give you a sense of what's going on outside of here and of the kinds of trends taking place.

What I was trying to do through making reference to our survey was to indicate to you some of the perceptions out there, particularly about what is happening in workplaces. We know it's an aging workforce, that there are issues around recruitment, and that there are issues around retention of people, particularly because of the workload and levels of stress within workplaces. As has been echoed by my colleagues here, we also know about the need for greater participation, to have a sense of involvement, transparency, and ownership of what takes place in workplaces. That's the environment in which people are operating. People are feeling powerless and overwhelmed in their workplaces, and there's a sense of arbitrariness.

If the legislation can help to start to address some of this, it will also help the federal government in its issues around recruitment and retention, because there are going to be big staffing issues confronting it.

Quite frankly, I haven't had the time to go through the bill in any great detail. I would think it would be appropriate to make some initial observations or starting points, but I guess you need that background information. It's our sense that people are looking to leave relatively soon and that the question is how will you replace them. How will you become the employer of choice? How will you be able to bring the people in who are going to be required to provide those functions?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks.

Let me just move along.

As you indicated, Ms. Hynna, you served on the Fryer task force, and you've pointed out the shortcomings that you see in the bill, or the pluses and minuses, quite clearly. Given that you have looked at the bill and been on the committee, I'm just trying to get a sense from you whether you are disappointed with what has emerged from this. Or, based on your 30 years of experience in the public service, is it about what you would have expected?

Ms. Martha Hynna: I think on the whole it's a good bill. Obviously, as I've pointed out, I'm disappointed in a few aspects of it. I don't think I want to talk to.... I think when John Fryer comes, he'll be able to tell you in more detail what the group as whole, the task force as whole.... I made a few comments at one point, but I haven't participated in a full consultation, so I don't think I can speak on their behalf, especially about the labour relations part of the bill, which is most of what we concentrated on.

Given my experience, though, as an individual with 30 years in the public sector, I think it's a good bill. As I say, there are a few things I feel quite strongly about, a few things that people knew I'd feel quite strongly about. But obviously, when you put a bill forward there are compromises that are made anyway.

On the whole I think it's a very good bill. I think the direction on the staffing is the right one. My main concern is that to make that work, you have to get the employees, in particular the representatives, onside. I think basically it would be an easy change to make. There's a section on requiring consultation. In other cases, if you just repeat that section, clause 29, I think it is, that would require.... Again, I don't think consultation goes as far as co-development. I think too often consultation is a matter of people saying, well, this is what we're going to do, do you like it? Then when I get it, I look at it and say, well, I don't really like paragraph 3 on page 6. But co-development to me is a concept where you participate from the beginning in building something. It's a joint building of something. Therefore, you get joint ownership of the thing.

I've worked a lot with the unions. I was on the executive of the National Joint Council as a management representative. I've worked with unions throughout my career. In my experience, most of the time you can reach agreement, particularly on the principles, and that's what we're talking about. The actual decision as to who's going to be staffed would still be a manager's decision.

What we're talking about is working together and setting out the methodology, the manner in which those decisions would be made so they would be seen to be fair and transparent. And then the managers make the decision.

I think staffing in an organization like the public service is very complex. So one of the problems we've had is this across-the-board “this is the way it is”, set by a lot of jurisprudence that's based on an old act that imposed practices that have become irrelevant. What's happening, and what has been happening for years, is that people use all kinds of methodologies to avoid staffing whenever possible, because they can't wait for the 10 months or 18 months it takes to get someone in. So we use acting appointments or.... When I was there we did all these kinds of things to try to avoid it.

I think it's important to have a good, well-based, fair, open system that's practical and can be used in a relatively quick way. That means in certain cases you would be restricting the area of competition, and in other cases you'd have a much broader area of competition, depending on the circumstances. I think you need to have something that can vary much more by circumstances, as long as it has these basic values behind it. Transparency, fairness, employment equity, and obviously impartiality are the key values.

À (1020)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Just as a follow-up to Mr. Proctor, when you talk about co-development and co-determination, they are just interchangeable?

Ms. Martha Hynna: I think so. I think co-determination has been used more as a... it may be the translation that's given.

Ms. Arlene Wortsman: It tends to be used in labour language.

Ms. Martha Hynna: Okay, co-development--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): But you mean it as the same?

Ms. Martha Hynna: They're very similar, yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): And it's a collaboration without veto power?

Ms. Martha Hynna: Basically, one of the big issues on co-development is whether or not, when you enter into a process of co-development, you would have recourse to an independent third party if there is an impasse. I think you probably want to agree at the beginning of any individual process that indeed this is a case where we want to have impasse. In other cases, you may decide that we'll try to work together, and if we don't reach agreement, then we don't have agreement. Often, then, the employer would be able to carry on.

If you take the National Joint Council, for example, that does a lot of co-development of policies, and they now have a situation where they can refer things to impasse in certain situations--their new bylaws. I'm not a real expert on it. In other cases, if it's a matter that can be collective-bargained, if they don't get agreement, it will go into collective bargaining. If it is a matter that is not collective-bargained, such as the superannuation, the pension plan....

We've worked very hard. I've participated in a process to try to co-develop the changes in direction for the pension plan. We got very close to agreement. We didn't get agreement, because of the issue of the surplus, and you may recall that. We were very close to an agreement on joint management, but because of the issue, we didn't get agreement, so the employer then decided to go ahead on its own and act in a certain way, taking some of the recommendations into consideration but not moving them away.

So I think when we're talking co-development, probably the biggest issue is the issue of impasse. I suspect there is not a straightforward yes, we always have to have third-party resolution of impasse, or no, never. I think it probably depends on the situation.

Ms. Arlene Wortsman: I just want to add that there are lots of examples in other parts of Canada and other jurisdictions, but you have to know what the basic ground rules are and the framework you're operating in, so that when you hit that impasse you have a place to go; you can take it off the table.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay.

Madame Sgro, and then Mr. Forseth.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you, and good morning.

To both Ms. Wortsman and Ms. Hynna, I'd be interested in knowing, or at some point maybe the committee would like to know, if you have a chance to actually look at the rest of the bill thoroughly.... You mentioned that you were supportive of most of it and that we should look at repeating clause 29 throughout it. I think it's really important that we do this right for everybody's sake, including the Canadian public.

I'm concerned about this issue of taking six to eighteen months to try to fill vacancies and how people get discouraged and people who have a lot of potential don't bother staying in the public service, because they get frustrated and leave, and all of the rest of the issues that certainly we hear on all sides.

What other parts of the bill are you aware of that give you problems, that maybe we should make sure we take a second look at to improve it?

À (1025)

Ms. Martha Hynna: As I said, I don't think I want to comment on the labour relations part. It's a huge bill, and I have read that part in some detail. I've read the staffing part, the new Public Service Employment Act, in considerable detail. I haven't given much attention to the learning institution--I forget what it's being called.

In the staffing part, as I said, I would add the concept of transparency. The preamble, in various ways, refers to a number of values, some in different paragraphs, but it refers to them. I would add the concept of transparency. I'm not a drafter, so I don't know exactly how I'd do it, but I would add that concept of transparency.

The second area where I would have preferred something would have been a more direct authority to deputy ministers. The bill gives the Public Service Commission the authority to staff, to make appointments. Then it says this authority can be delegated to deputy ministers. In the preamble, it specifically talks about the importance. I would have preferred a direct delegation. I certainly thought that would give more ownership to managers.

One of the big problems in human resource management in the government is a tendency for managers to think that's something for the human resource specialists. They worry very much about the management of money, because they know they're accountable. When it comes to human resources and staffing, and labour relations as well, all of these things, it seems to be somewhat removed from them. It seems to be some kind of thing that's over there, that the specialists will look after--or Treasury Board does the collective bargaining, or the Public Service Commission is involved in the staffing. What's important, and I know the framers of the bill and the government as a whole feel very strongly this way too, is that managers take accountability for this. I would have done it more directly.

I'm just one person. I know it was a subject of great debate, and the decision was based on a whole bunch of people with a lot of ideas that would be better--more protection to the concept of impartiality; more protection to have the Public Service Commission have the direct authority and then delegate and be able to take that delegation back.

So I don't feel terribly strongly about it. I just would have done it more directly. But the main--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Lamoureux would like to comment on that as well, actually.

Ms. Martha Hynna: So those are the main changes I would have made, apart from that other one, that in clause 29 I would have added a requirement to consult--or even better, to co-develop.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Lamoureux.

[Translation]

Mr. François Lamoureux: Another part of the bill raises an important problem, in our view : that's the collective bargaining system. We can agree on major principles. We can agree on the fact that the freedom to bargain collectively is an essential pillar that ensures the credibility of the staff relations system.

The problem stems from the fact that, when Parliament does not afford the parties, that is the union and the employer, the opportunity to negotiate more broadly in what's called the field of the negotiable, that is to say all conditions of employment, the union and the employer do not feel they are parties to the entire collective bargaining process. Allow me to explain.

Clause 113 of the bill provides as follows:

113. A collective agreement may not, directly or indirectly, alter or eliminate any existing term or condition of employment or establish any new term or condition of employment if

(a) doing so would require the enactment or amendment of any legislation by Parliament, except for the purpose of appropriating money required for the implementation of the term or condition; or

(b) the term or condition is one that has been or may be established under the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Government Employees Compensation Act.

Thus we're leaving the field of the negotiable in conditions of employment that may be as essential as the staffing mechanisms, pay structure, classification, fringe benefits, health and safety. So a number of bargaining aspects are centralized in the hands of the Treasury Board or Parliament. We think there should be a delegation of powers to the parties and a decentralization so as to make the parties much more responsible for their negotiable conditions of employment.

We still have the same premise: negotiations are conducted between two parties, and people are satisfied when both parties have been able to discuss and come to an agreement. From the moment you exclude a large part of what is negotiable and Parliament does not permit the negotiation of those conditions of employment, there is growing dissatisfaction because people can't take part in the entire bargaining process.

We could cite a number of examples of situations in which bargaining agents and management representatives can't touch aspects that would be very favourable for them. In our opinion, that's a very important aspect. In the Quebec provincial public service, and in the Canadian private sector as a whole, specific rules and competitiveness are taken into account, along with factors that the parties have established, always based on the power relationship between them. These things are negotiated everywhere in Canada, except in the public service, where the Act greatly limits the field of the negotiable.

In our opinion, in all matters concerning the elements I've mentioned, staffing in particular, the less unilateralism there is, the greater chance there is that there will be harmonious staff relations in the public service.

À (1030)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): I'm going to go to Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

In the submission we received today from the CSN, it says specifically about the merit principle in the Public Service Employment Act:

The proposed amendments to this law introduce a major change in the process of staffing a position in the public service. If the Bill is passed without modification, positions will not be awarded to the candidate who is best qualified to perform the duties, but simply to a qualified candidate...The proposed changes will open the door to favouritism in the selection of who is appointed to public service positions.

That certainly goes to morale and it goes to competence. I would like some expansion on how we're going to fix this whole definition of “merit” that has finally been put into a bill. I also have concern about what I note here on page 8 of the submission, where it talks about anyone from a group of people with minimal qualifications, you might say, being selected. This is rather than there being some direction toward excellence or where the meaning of “merit” actually means the best qualified within some bracket of some particular competition.

Could you give me some comments about your concern for this new definition of “merit” and how we could fix it?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Rioux: The notion of the best qualified person is the notion of the present system. We're now suggesting the notion of qualified employees. If Parliament wants to replace the notion of the best qualified person with the notion of qualified people, we should have more specific criteria and say what is meant by qualifications, experience and seniority when it comes to selecting employees. That's the way we see things. The notion of best qualified was supposed to yield the best results, but it appears that poses problems. If we want to replace that with the notion of qualified persons, why not do like the vast majority of businesses and collective agreements? Virtually everywhere, needs in the areas of qualification and experience are determined and, when the qualifications and experience of certain persons are deemed sufficient for those persons to occupy the positions that are open, where candidates are equally qualified, selection is based on the length of their service. That's done in many organizations.

That's how we view this matter, and that was one of the recommendations. It was stated in the Fryer Report that more transparency was necessary and that there should be a system that does not call the notion of merit into question but also takes into account questions relating to justice and equity. That's the path we should take.

À (1035)

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: There has been a fair amount of discussion about the definition of “merit”. Previously it was just the courts that were defining it; now is the first time we're actually putting it down into a statute.

I essentially agree with the concern that's outlined here on page 8, that it seems to miss the direction of excellence, of finding the best within a particular context. The way I read it in the bill, it's more like, well, it can be anyone who meets the basic requirements. Elsewhere in the bill it talks about perhaps not even having to have a competition, that there will be no requirement for determining whether someone is the best or not.

Many have raised this issue, but to get beyond just generally raising the issue and to really try to help us, I think even the minister is saying okay, you've raised it in the House and people have raised it in committee, but give me some help and give us some better direction as to how it has to be changed in the wording. Otherwise, it just becomes a topic of discussion. I'm wondering if anyone at the table can help me out to actually move this ball down the field a little farther to get more specific and to respond to the general concerns I've heard from many.

Ms. Martha Hynna: I think you have to read the bill. You can't just read that one definition. You have to look at the preamble, where it talks about excellence and it talks about a public service committed to fair employment practices and respect for employees. It talks about a public service that strives for excellence and a whole bunch of diversity in a number of those kinds of things.

You also have to look at clause 30. You have to have additional qualifications that are “an asset for the work to be performed, or for the organization, currently or in the future”, so you can't be arbitrary in deciding that. There has to be a reason for picking one person over the others, and in many cases it will be because it's the best person. It's just that it shouldn't always be required and partly because that “best person” in all cases is, I think, a bit of a fiction, and you need a little more flexibility.

It's why I think you need to have agreement often at the local and departmental level, not public-service-wide, to decide in this particular circumstance, in this kind of a situation, these are the criteria we'll be using, this is the process we'll be following, and this is how we will make a decision. The person could be in this case the best qualified. It's just that in another case you may think that once we have people with qualifications, seniority is the appropriate criterion for making that decision. You might think in a certain case that, well, we really have a problem of balance in terms of diversity in this area; once we have qualified people, we need to move towards a better balance in terms of people with, say, a disability, or maybe we need a better language balance.

If you put a rule in that it's always the best person, what happens is that it becomes rigid. Then people will work around it instead of trying to use a system that gives you some ability to look at things such as excellence and all that kind of stuff. Build a process that has flexibility in the various situations and is transparent so it's clear why you're making a decision. If it's transparent, it's pretty hard to make a decision because I like you best; that's not a very easy thing to justify. There has to be a transparent reason you choose someone.

The design of the bill is to make it more usable and to avoid.... Because the other system puts a standard that's very hard to set and doesn't meet all the needs, there's a tendency to avoid it.

À (1040)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: What you're really saying is you disagree with page 8 of the CSN submission.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would obviously like to continue on that, but there's another thing.

Ms. Lise Poulin: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...the recommendations.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes. I'm going to come back to an aspect I find very important for members of Parliament and also for the people who often have to testify before the committee. We would have liked there to be protection for informers. In other words, when a senior executive tells the media or members certain things, he or she should be protected. There is no provision for that in the Act. We know that sometimes there are reprisals, reprimands and even dismissals, sometimes disguised, as a result of that. So there's nothing in the Act on that, and I would like to know whether that would be an essential element for protecting your workers.

Mr. François Lamoureux : We haven't analyzed or explored that aspect of the bill regarding staff relations. That's a principle you sometimes see in the private sector more particularly, but we haven't sufficiently analyzed that question to submit a recommendation or specific position to the committee, with all the parameters and consequences that entails.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: With regard to harassment, the survey results published in December show that the situation is really very serious. We didn't think it existed to such a degree : one government employee in five claims to have been a victim of harassment. There is no provision for this in the bill. I've looked through your brief and I see nothing specific on this subject.

I would like you to tell me what you think about it. In your opinion, would it be important to address this in the bill?

Mr. François Lamoureux: On that point, I would like to say that we stated in our brief that that was a major concern and that we should perhaps draw, among other things, on the Quebec Labour Standards Act, which was recently amended to include a remedy in case of psychological harassment.

You're correct in saying that it's an enormous problem. In our view, that's a major deficiency of the bill. It's time that Canada aligned itself with international legislation, in Europe, in France and in a number of other countries where legislative action has already been taken on the question of moral harassment, harassment in the work place, an extremely widespread phenomenon, which has also been observed in a number of studies and a number of legal textbooks.

In Quebec, as I said, the government has legislated on psychological harassment. In the context of the presentation of our brief, we have a suggestion to make regarding the psychological harassment issue. It's consistent with a CSN priority, that it be included in labour legislation in Quebec.

In our opinion, there's no difference between the Quebec statute and the federal act to modernize the public service: this must be included in both pieces of legislation. The Labour Standards Act includes a definition, and a remedy is provided: a complaint may be filed with the Commission des relations du travail within 30 days following the psychological harassment incident. A definition of psychological harassment has been proposed and a consensus could probably be reached on it in the context of the bill to modernize the public service.

The provision I'm referring to is section 81.18 of the Labour Standards Act:

81.18 For the purposes of this Act, “psychological harassment” means any vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated and hostile or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures, that affects an employee's dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that results in a harmful work environment for the employee.

The following provision is also made:

81.19 Every employee has a right to a work environment free from psychological harassment. Employers must take reasonable action to prevent psychological harassment and, whenever they become aware of such behaviour, to put a stop to it.

Those are the parameters of the provision that has been passed, which, in our opinion, could readily be transposed to the public service context since the phenomenon exists there as well.

À (1045)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...to the departments?

Mr. François Lamoureux: Yes.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Ms. Robillard tells us that she is aware of the problem, but that she sees no interest in legislating on it. She says it's better to settle the matter at the administrative level. The same is true in the case of official languages and bilingualism. There's nothing in the bill requiring government employees to be bilingual. Once again, she tells us there's absolutely no point in legislating because we have the Official Languages Act, but that we're going to establish an administrative practice and that they're aware of that. They've been aware of it for a long time, and the same is true in the case of harassment.

Do you think we should legislate on these two points?

Mr. François Lamoureux: You should legislate on harassment. The same debate occurred a number of years ago regarding staff relations. Burn-out was not recognized and it was always said that those people were not sick. We had to wait a number of years before burn-out was recognized. The situation regarding harassment in the work place is so explosive that denying the fact is tantamount to denying a major problem which, sooner or later, will explode.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Ms. Hynna just wants to comment, and then I'll go to Mr. Proctor.

Ms. Martha Hynna: The issue of harassment is covered by collective agreements. It's covered by policy; the government has a policy on harassment. I don't think it needs to be in the legislation. If you put it in the legislation, it's much harder to change as things change, for example, the concept of psychological harassment as it comes into play, which was not something people talked about. Using collective agreements and those means gives you more flexibility to reflect concerns at the particular time, so I'm not convinced that it needs to be in the legislation.

As for languages--bilingualism--there's another act dealing with that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Proctor.

[Translation]

M. Dick Proctor: Thank you. I would like to ask the CSN people a question.

You made 14 recommendations in your report. Are there one or two that are more important or even essential in improving the proposed legislation?

Ms. Lise Poulin: They're all important.

Mr. François Lamoureux: Of course, there is the question of the collective bargaining system, the field of the negotiable, negotiable matters. There's also an extremely important aspect, which is the entire staffing and appointments issue. We hope that positions are not assigned on the basis of merit and that criteria are developed jointly by the union and management. I would say that those are two of the most important issues, without restricting the scope of the others.

Mr. Claude Rioux: I would like to draw your attention to the part of the bill on the establishment of a public interest commission in cases where parties have come to an impasse. An excellent suggestion was made in the Fryer Report, stemming from the fact that, in the federal government, in some cases, the level of essential services required is very high, which considerably affects the effectiveness of collective bargaining through traditional means.

The Fryer Commission examined that with a great deal of attention. It suggested an independent public interest dispute settlement commission with very broad preventive powers. All sorts of mechanisms have been developed in the private sector and public sector to assist in conflict resolution. Ultimately, after analyzing the facts and making recommendations, that commission would have the power to decide on a collective agreement in some cases or, at the request of a union, to solve certain problems related to negotiations.

It is important to do that because considerable care must be taken to avoid slippage in certain areas. People are said to have a right to bargain freely. In the public sector, there is always the matter of public services, essential services, and a balance must be struck. We can't just engage in rhetoric and tell people they have a right to bargain, whereas, in actual fact, there is so little flexibility that people ultimately no longer believe in the process, which creates very serious problems. I don't want to make a fuss, but that can cause major credibility problems in the system.

I believe Fryer conducted an excellent analysis of this question and made a very good suggestion. The other day, I reread Paul Weiler's book, Reconcilable Differences. Mr. Weiler discussed the same philosophy in the 1970s and 1980s. I believe you should follow the approach described on page 35 of the report. We find that the mechanism proposed there has definite merit in helping to lend the process more credibility and to rebalance relations between the government and its employees. That idea has been adopted in the Act, but insufficient provision has unfortunately been made for measures to make it as effective as it needs to be.

À (1050)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Madam Hynna wants to make a comment.

Ms. Martha Hynna: Very briefly, on the issue of scope of bargaining, now I'll speak about the Fryer commission and why we got to what we did.

Rather than recommending an expansion of the scope of bargaining to include staffing--and I'm going to concentrate on the staffing--we talked about co-development. It was partly because we were a group of three people--I represented management--and this was a compromise we came up with, knowing that having staffing as a part of collective bargaining was something we probably wouldn't get agreement on, although there was a strong push for us to do that.

One of the reasons we came out with co-development was indeed that this would be a way of having joint participation. The fact that there are many unions, many occupations, many different departments, and all these kind of things, we thought that we needed a more across-the-board process. Co-development would be a way, especially with a system built in for impasse, to have the bargaining agents participate in developing the staffing process--and classification for that matter, because we made the same recommendations there--without having it actually in the collective agreements. It's partly because it lasts for a longer time and it crosses all the various different unions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Next is Mr. Tirabassi, and then the last question will go to Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is to the representative of CSN. It's with regard to appointment recourse. Bill C-25 introduces several improvements in the manner of dealing with employee concerns about the staffing process. Employees will have the opportunity to raise issues related to their results at the time the decisions are actually made, as I understand it. If there is a formal complaint, recourse is now focused on how the employee will be treated. There is also a clear articulation of the grounds for complaint, including the abuse of authority, to ensure that managers are held accountable for their actions. As I understand it, individuals can challenge any of the following matters: the essential qualifications for the work to be performed, any additional qualifications considered to be an asset, any current or future needs of the organization, and any current or future operational requirements of the organization. It seems to me that this is a vast improvement over the current system, which focuses more on process and not on how the employee is treated. It appears to respond to the employees' concerns. I'm interested in hearing your views on this issue, whoever would like to take the question.

À (1055)

[Translation]

Mr. François Lamoureux: In the staffing process, we always come back to the starting point. A person may complain when the decision has already been made. We hope that, at the staffing level, the criteria are developed on a partnership, joint action basis. From the moment it's more transparent and there are more criteria regarding justice, equity and experience, a lot fewer decisions will be challenged because the criteria will be shared.

Ms. Lise Poulin: They'll be known.

Mr. François Lamoureux: The important thing is that people not get the impression that they're faced with a fait accompli. A decision has been made and you don't agree with it? Well, challenge it. That's not the path to take. We want that right at the outset. We want to ensure that as few people as possible question decisions, that the percentage of those people is reduced to 2 or 3 percent. When people thoroughly understand those shared criteria, there will be fewer challenges.

The current problem is that people are faced with a fait accompli and that there are criteria that have been adopted unilaterally. In our opinion, any unilateral decision results in poor staff relations.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Mr. Forseth will wrap it up.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm asking any of the witnesses to respond. I am going to change the topic.

Has anyone looked at the parameters around the political rights of employees and how the bill describes limits to being politically active or for an employee to become a candidate for public office? It's my view that the bill is still too controlling and top-down and rather old-fashioned concerning employees and politics. I'm looking for advice from witnesses about this clause in this set of hearings for the next while, because I don't think there is the right balance in the bill right now. I want to hear your thoughts on employees and politics as described in the bill.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Ms. Poulin.

Ms. Lise Poulin: A lot of thought is currently going into that in Quebec.

Mr. François Lamoureux: That's a question we haven't explored. Of course, there's the entire question of hierarchy and the confidential nature of political relations. In our opinion, there's an important distinction to be drawn between someone who is a deputy minister and someone who is an employee in department X. I believe that's the only question that calls for the creation of another big-budget committee.

Ms. Lise Poulin: The seniority criterion could be a recognized criterion.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Go ahead, you still have some time left.

Á (1100)

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm looking more at lower-level employees and local managers, and especially at the issue of federal public employees in our smaller communities. They are counted on to be the real people of competence, I suppose, to get on local city councils, local regional councils, school boards, or whatever. They're leaders in the community, and in some cases the whole economic viability of a local community is related to the bedrock of federal employees who are there.

I just see this section of the bill as still being old-fashioned, top-down, and controlling. It limits what is defined as political activity, and there is this tremendous requirement to go begging to the employer and to having to take a leave of absence even to become a candidate—whether it's the employer's business or not. This whole area had to be pushed by employees in the courts to get anywhere. I see an example in the provinces. How they deal with their public service employees is miles ahead. So I'm signalling to you folks that we want some further advice. Maybe you should come back to the committee after looking at that section of the bill.

This is my view and my first take on it. I have some experience in this regard, because I was a public servant in the provincial public service of British Columbia. I took leave to try to get a seat in the House of Commons. In my circumstances, I didn't have to ask anybody, but invoked a section of the contract and told the employer what I was doing. Then I got to say when my leave should start, because it was a negotiated term from the union.

As I've already said, I just find this whole statutory stuff terribly controlling. I don't even know if this section would stand up to a charter challenge. So this is my signal to you folks and to others who may come, that I think we need to do some work in this area.

I've discussed it with the minister on several occasions, and I'm very pleased to hear that she's also looking for further advice and help on this section. So if we can come to some better conclusion, there may be some room for improvement, provided we can get some good evidence on this topic.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Does anyone want to contribute to that evidence at the moment?

Madame Poulin.

[Translation]

Ms. Lise Poulin: I think you're right: that should be promoted at the local level. Yes, we're going to examine that question and we can come back if you wish or contact you directly.

I want to close by talking about a point Ms. Hynna raised. She said it wasn't necessary to include psychological harassment provisions in the Act because they exist in the collective agreements.

Yes, they exist in the collective agreements, but I believe that, by including psychological harassment provisions in the Act, the government would demonstrate its political intention to recognize psychological harassment. I think it would be very important to see that in an act.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Just before we wrap up, I know that Mr. Lanctôt wants to follow up on one point that was made earlier.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I'd like Mr. Lamoureux to add a point on the question of qualifications.

I would like to hear your views on the grounds for questioning decisions. There are only two left. If this is done jointly, would it be possible to retain only those two grounds? Should we retain only abuse of power as a ground for questioning, or write “in particular, abuse of power”, because there are other things? I want to hear your view on that because I find it incredible that questioning is limited to two grounds.

Mr. Claude Rioux: With regard to evaluating qualifications, there isn't just abuse of power. According to doctrine and case law, qualifications must be related to the task, to the position. So, of course, we don't want to limit it to that. If ever persons were equally qualified and there was an appointment problem, we would want to be able to debate not only abuse of power, but also the assessment conducted of it.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The bill should be amended because it concerns only those two aspects. It's restrictive.

Mr. Claude Rioux: We want to have the flexibility that exists in the labour relations system that prevails in the country where qualifications are assessed.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri): Okay, thank you very much.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for the evidence they presented this morning, and we look forward to continuing our work with this bill.

This meeting is adjourned.