Kevin Page calls for public service renewal from the 'ground up' - Association of ...

Press Clippings for the period of November 4 to 11, 2013
          Revue de presse pour la période du 4 au 11 novembre, 2013

     Here are a few articles and opinion pieces that might be of interest to AJC members
   Voici quelques articles et chroniques d’opinion qui pourraient intéresser les membres de
                                              l’AJJ

Kevin Page calls for public service renewal
from the ‘ground up’

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said the public service is losing its way, and that
upholding the traditional values of openness, transparency and accountability will have to come from the
rank-and-file public servants, because it’s not coming from the top. Photograph by: PAT McGRATH , THE
OTTAWA CITIZEN

By Kathryn May, OTTAWA CITIZEN November 7, 2013

OTTAWA — Kevin Page worries that Canada’s public service risks losing its values,
ethics and principles under the leadership of deputy ministers who have “gone silent” and
aren’t challenging a government that doesn’t want their advice or evidence.

The former parliamentary budget officer said the public service is losing its way, and that
upholding the traditional values of openness, transparency and accountability will have to
come from the rank-and-file public servants, because it’s not coming from the top.

“There is no vision of where the public service must go in this environment, either from
the government or public service,” Page said Thursday. “Yet we are taking big decisions
like limiting bargaining rights or reducing the size of the public service without any clear
idea of what kind of public service we want or need in 10 years.

“Public service values, ethics and principles must be put back on the table. Renewal must
come from the base of the public service, given the vacuum at the top. This is not easy
but it can happen.”

He pulls no punches on criticizing the bureaucracy where he worked for 27 years,
steering budgets and financial information through the system from powerful central
agencies like Finance, Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office.

He called Privy Council Clerk Wayne Wouters’ Blueprint 2020 to renew and modernize
the public service workplace an “empty vessel without a rudder.”

And he questioned whether deputy ministers have what it takes to “re-energize the public
service” and where the policy ideas for the next generation will come from.

While at the PBO, Page waged a public battle with Wouters and other senior bureaucrats
to get departments to turn over their 2012 spending plans so MPs could see what was
being cut. He’s now the Jean-Luc Pepin Chair on Canadian Government at the University
of Ottawa.

He argues that the public service needs a “ground-up” renewal from the rank and file to
live up to the public service’s obligations to provide information, costing, research and
analysis to support decision-making, in order to restore the trust of Canadians in
government and Parliament.

Instead, the public service has been silenced and is “running scared,” he says, and
questions how the eroding policy and financial capacity of bureaucracy can be rebuilt.

Page will be making his case for a ground-up renewal of the public service at the annual
general meeting of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which is
giving him a special Public Accountability award.

He argues that unions representing thousands of federal employees are well-placed to tap
into that base. His call, however, comes at a time when unions are under siege, facing
legislative attacks that could significantly reduce their power and threaten their survival.

The Conservative government’s omnibus budget bill calls for sweeping amendments to
the Public Service Labour Relations Act that will completely change the ground rules for
collective bargaining in the public service.

But Page said the mandate of unions extends beyond collective bargaining. They defend
labour and human rights and promote professional standards and values, which “gives
them the opportunity to help develop a bottom-up renewal exercise and create that
discussion.”

“We have never needed unions more,” said Page. “Union survival may mean doing
things a different way and not just about the right to strike, fighting for disability benefits
and wage increases. They can raise credibility in a different way.”

He said unions can speak out for their members and also about the obligations of
professional public servants to provide the information Parliament needs to do its job.

“At PBO I worked with public servants that represented the future. They had a mission.
They put that mission in front of intimidation from the government and senior
bureaucrats. Doing their jobs for Canadians was more important than self preservation in
an environment that is becoming more toxic.”

PIPSC president Gary Corbett said the union created the Accountability award to
recognize Page’s achievements as Canada’s first parliamentary budget officer and for
setting an example for “how all professional public servants should work.”

“We’re giving him that award because that (accountability) is not something that is
awarded or even visible these days … This government doesn’t promote excellence in the
public service, and when they do talk about us, it’s about our sick leave or benefits and it
make us out to be the enemy.”

Earlier this month, the right-leaning Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) gave Page its
highest “TaxFighter” Award, putting him in the conservative company of previous award
winners such as former Ontario premier Mike Harris, former Alberta premier Ralph
Klein and Michael Walker, the founding executive director of the Fraser Institute.

But Corbett said unions are facing a major challenge to re-engage apathetic memberships
for what some union leaders believe will become a fight for their survival. The
Conservative convention approved a slew of motions that would further rein in the power
of unions.

“Last year we said the wolf is at the door. Well, this year, the wolf has crashed in on us
and we have to deal with attempts to drag labour back decades.”

Corbett said the assault on labour is forcing unions to connect with grassroots members
so they understand and appreciate what they get for the dues they pay every month.
PIPSC is proposing a $7 a month dues increase, which was rejected last year when
proposed.

------------------------------------

La fonction publique en état de crise

L'ancien directeur parlementaire du budget, Kevin Page. ARCHIVES, Le Soleil

Philippe Orfali, Le Droit, le 9 novembre 2013

La fonction publique est en crise et a perdu la confiance des Canadiens au cours des
dernières années, conséquences des pressions effectuées par les conservateurs sur
l'appareil administratif de l'État, a estimé vendredi l'ancien directeur parlementaire du
budget et bête noire du gouvernement Harper, Kevin Page.

À son avis, la fonction publique comme institution se dégrade et perd la confiance des
contribuables et du Parlement. « Notre fonction publique est devenue vouée à éviter
l'imputabilité et la transparence. Où étaient nos preuves pour appuyer des décisions du
gouvernement Harper telles le projet de loi sur la criminalité, pour les avions de chasse,
les changements apportés aux transferts canadiens en matière de santé ou à la sécurité de
la vieillesse ? Où sont les plans de dépenses pour chaque ministère et agence qui
expliquent de quelle manière le gouvernement va parvenir à son gel des dépenses des
programmes pour les cinq prochaines années ? »

M. Page a fait ces déclarations devant une audience convaincue à l'occasion de la 94e
assemblée générale annuelle de l'Institut professionnel de la fonction publique du Canada
(IPFPC), l'un des plus grands syndicats fédéraux. L'ancien directeur parlementaire du
budget est le premier récipiendaire du Prix de la transparence publique de l'Institut.

Le président de l'Institut, Gary Corbett, a estimé que le gouvernement Harper devrait
apprendre de ses erreurs et « relever le défi d'une gestion plus professionnelle,
transparente et responsable » lancé par l'ancien directeur parlementaire du budget.

Assemblée générale

Plus de 400 délégués sont réunis jusqu'à aujourd'hui dans un hôtel du centre-ville
d'Ottawa pour discuter de l'impact des politiques gouvernementales actuelles et de la
réaction des syndicats. Les réductions des effectifs, les services et les programmes du
gouvernement fédéral, le musellement des scientifiques fédéraux, la guerre menée contre
les finances des syndicats et les droits des travailleurs seront notamment abordés.

L'assemblée générale de cette année revêt une importance particulière puisque la
convention collective de la plupart des groupes de l'IPFPC expirera en 2014.

« Les séries de compressions dans les programmes et services du gouvernement
compromettent la sécurité, le bien-être et la prospérité de tous les Canadiens, soutient M.
Corbett. C'est une année particulièrement sombre à cet égard, car le gouvernement décide
en catimini comment il détruira les syndicats et la fonction publique tandis que des
scandales publics impliquant des conservateurs éclatent les uns après les autres. »

Les délégués participeront aussi à un débat sur l'augmentation des cotisations et
assisteront aux présentations des candidats à la présidence avant les élections prévues
pour le début de décembre.

------------------------------------------

Les membres appelés à se mobiliser

Le président de l'Institut professionnel de la fonction publique du Canada, Gary Corbett. Photo LeDroit

Guillaume St-Pierre, Le Droit, le 10 novembre 2013

L'Institut professionnel de la fonction publique du Canada (IPFPC) a profité de son
assemblée annuelle pour fouetter ses troupes.

« On tente de mobiliser nos membres depuis un certain temps, affirme le président du
syndicat, Gary Corbett. Nous constatons que de nombreux membres se sont désengagés.»

Le rassemblement a réuni à Ottawa 400 délégués représentant 55 000 scientifiques et
d'autres professionnels de la fonction publique fédérale.

L'appel à la mobilisation survient une semaine après que les conservateurs de Stephen
Harper, réunis en congrès à Calgary, aient laissé entendre que d'autres coupures à
l'appareil fédéral étaient à prévoir.

Inquiétudes

Le syndicat s'inquiète aussi que le gouvernement compte s'arroger le droit exclusif de
définir la désignation des services essentiels, ce qui aurait comme conséquence de limiter
le droit de grève, comme le prévoit le projet de loi omnibus de mise en oeuvre du budget.

« Ce parti nous fait reculer de plusieurs décennies », peste-t-il.

M. Corbett estime que des syndiqués sont assis sur leurs acquis, et sous-estiment les
attaques qu'essuient actuellement les syndicats de la fonction publique.

« Le Canada est un pays prospère, et les gens ont tendance à ne pas trop faire attention
aux droits qu'ils ont acquis dans les dernières décennies », déplore-t-il.

Afin d'aider l'IPFPC à fourbir ses armes, l'assemblée générale a voté en faveur d'une
augmentation mensuelle de 7 $ des cotisations versées par tous les membres de l'institut,
dont la majorité des conventions collectives seront échues en 2014.

« Nos membres comprennent bien que l'Institut doit être bien équipé pour défendre leurs
droits, leur rémunération et leurs conditions de travail et pour se porter à la défense des
services publics qu'ils offrent à tous les Canadiens », ajoute-t-il.

Le thème de la transparence était aussi à l'ordre du jour. L'ancien directeur parlementaire
du budget, Kevin Page, a invité les fonctionnaires à fournir aux députés « l'information
dont le Parlement a besoin pour faire son travail face à un gouvernement qui accorde peu
d'importance à la responsabilité et à la transparence ».

---------------------------

Clement puts “alarming” public service
absenteeism at top of priority list

Treasury Board President Tony Clement says that high levels of absenteeism are harming morale and
productivity in the public service Photograph by: Adrian Wyld , THE CANADIAN PRESS

By KATHRYN MAY, OTTAWA CITIZEN November 6, 2013

OTTAWA — Treasury Board President Tony Clement said reducing the “alarming rate
of absenteeism” in the public service will be his top priority when he goes to the
bargaining table with federal unions in 2014 to replace the existing sick leave regime
with a new short-term disability plan.

Clement told reporters Wednesday that he plans to table a proposal to replace
accumulated sick leave with a new short-term disability plan to help reduce the 18.2 days
a year the average public servant is taking off work.

“I’ll declare it to you again that first and foremost on the table from the federal
government’s perspective is to deal with the alarming rates of absenteeism in the federal
public service,” Clement said. “They are two and a half times the private sector norms.”

“This obviously destroys morale in the public service. It destroys productivity. It means
that for too long people are away from their jobs, and sometimes they’re not getting the
care they need. And so I think that that’s definitely something that is going to be a hot
topic of discussion with the unions.”

Clement’s repeated linking of absenteeism to sick leave provisions is a red flag for
unions, which say he is implying public servants are abusing the current system and
taking sick days when they aren’t really sick. They argue he’s using inflated numbers and
leaving Canadians with the wrong impression.

Clement has been at odds with the unions since June when he first announced his plans to
overhaul sick leave as a way to reduce absenteeism. He claims public servants are taking
an average of 18.2 days a year in unpaid and paid sick leave. Extrapolated over the
workforce, Treasury Board estimated more than 19,000 people are off work on any given
day on some kind of leave for illness and disability.

Clement further provoked public servants when he deliberately announced his overhaul
of sick leave during National Public Service Week, the annual event to celebrate the work
of public servants. They say Clement’s message was that Canada’s pampered public
servants abuse the system and take too much sick leave.

The “18 days” claim has since become a flashpoint with public servants and the unions.
NDP MP Paul Dewar asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine the credibility
of those numbers, and a report is expected soon.

But Clement will be going into that round of negotiations with an overhauled labour law
that will significantly reduce the bargaining power of unions. The sweeping amendments
to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, buried in the omnibus budget bill, will put
the government in the driver’s seat when determining which unions get to strike and
which ones go to arbitration to resolve any disputes.

The changes will also give the government the exclusive right to decide which workers
are essential and can’t strike. Amendments also reduce the independence of arbitrators

and ensure they base their awards on the government’s budgetary priorities and the
recruitment and retention of talent at current pay rates.

At last week’s Conservative convention, Clement said the government was altering “the
dynamics of collective bargaining” for the next round of negotiations to ensure it could
balance the budget for the next generation, not just for the next couple of years.

Clement is a strong supporter of the various policies taking aim at unions that were
adopted at the Conservative convention. One of the polices called on the government to
revamp public sector pension plans from defined benefit plans to defined contribution
plans, to bring them in line with Canadian norms.

But Clement suggested those changes aren’t on the horizon or in his “shop window” for
the upcoming round of bargaining. He added, however, he will be closely watching the
Export Development Bank and other Crown corporations that are looking at a two-tier
pension system in which new employees would be moved to a defined contribution plan
while current employees remain on the existing plan.

“I’ve declared what my focus is going to be. It’s going to be on absenteeism. Having said
that, there’s some interesting work that is being done around the margins which I’m
watching very closely. But from my perspective, what I’m putting in the shop window is
tackling absenteeism for the next round.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Ideology vs. facts – Conservatives use
faulty data to target sick leave
Claude Poirier Blog CAPE president, November 7, 2013

The number of attacks by the Conservative government on public service unions is so large, that
I get tired just listing them. I would like to deconstruct one of them this week: the use of sick
leave in the public service. We knew this would be a main the main point of attack during our
next round of bargaining, and it is one of the reasons why the Budget implementation bill, C-4,
contains so many provisions tilting the balance of power in the government’s favour as it enters
next year’s round of collective bargaining.

After Minister Clement stated that sick leave use is too high in the public sector, a Statistics
Canada released a study entitled Understanding Public-Private Sector Differences in Work

Absences on September 19, 2013, which set the record straight. We know the Conservatives
don’t think a reputable study should stand in the way of their ideology, but the study does
establish statistically comparable populations in the private and public sectors and in turn
generates observations regarding the differences between the two sectors.

There has been some public debate on the matter of work absences and of absence from work
in the public sector in particular. What has been missing up to now is a set of comparable
populations that would make it possible to isolate the “public sector” factor, so-to-speak, and
measure its effect without the interference of unknown or uncontrolled factors. The Statistics
Canada study does just that: it controls for the make-up of populations in the private and public
sector, and then it measures the difference in the number of days absent from work. The study
concludes that the difference is 0.8 days more absences in the public sector than in the private
sector when comparable populations are examined. Compare this to Minister Clement’s
message that public sector employees use up to 15 paid sick days per year while their private
sector counterparts average 6.7 days.

 The authors of the report use three variables to characterize the public sector population.
Firstly, in contrast to the general private sector population, the public sector population is
unionized. Only 1.6 million Canadians in the private sector have a collective agreement that
establishes in part their conditions of work, including how and when they can be absent from
work, whereas 2.1 million Canadians in the public sector have such collective agreements.
Though the absolute numbers are comparable, the rate of unionization in each sector is
significantly different. In the private sector, 19% of employees are unionized, whereas 76% of
public sector employees are unionized. Therefore, if we are looking to isolate the “public sector”
factor in order to determine to what extent it explains absence from work in the public sector,
then it is necessary to compare public sector rates of absence to rates of absence of unionized
private sector employees. In other words, we need to compare apples to apples.

Sick leave: The difference between the private and public sectors is 0.8 days per year.

 The two Statistics Canada researchers behind this study go further into the characteristics of
the public sector population in order to isolate with greater certainty the “public sector” factor.
There are proportionally more women in the public sector; and employees in the public sector
are on average older than workers in the private sector. Therefore, it is necessary to control for
these factors, again in order to isolate the “public sector” factor. The two researchers note that
men have fewer absences than women and that older employees are more often absent from
work than younger employees. Age and gender explain part of the difference in the rate of
absence between the private and public sectors.

After controlling for all of these variables – specifically, taking unionization, gender and age into
account – the difference between the private and public sectors is less than a day per year, i.e.,
0.8 days per year.

 What the Statistics Canada study does not measure, however, is lost work as a result of absence
from work. For there to be a cost to the employer and the taxpayer in the public sector, there
needs to be less work done as a result of absences. Is this in fact what happens? For the most
part, the answer is no. With the exception of some types of front line work directly serving the
public, when public service employees return from a day or two of sick leave they find that the
work that they would have normally done during those days is waiting for them and must be
done in addition to new work. In other words, it is a misnomer to speak of a cost of absences

from work. Public service employees end up working extra in order to catch-up with work that
was not done during their time away from work. For the most part, therefore, public service
workers are allowed to be absent for reasons of illness, but are not allowed to do less work
because they were sick. Consequently, for the most part, there is no real cost to the employer or
to taxpayers.

Is this true also in the private sector? Probably, where work is non-repetitious and not event-
circumscribed, it is true. So if we go a step beyond the Statistics Canada study, what does this
say about studies of lost productivity due to sick leave, whether in the private or public sector?

To be of any significance, the studies would need to compare productivity between populations
of workers within a same organization. They would need to identify an objective measure of
work carried out by a population of workers that has not taken sick leave and compare it against
the same objective measure of work carried out by a population with an identified average
amount of sick leave taken during the same period.

 In closing, the Statistics Canada study entitled Understanding Public-Private Sector Differences
in Work Absences makes a significant contribution to our understanding of sick leave. Canadians
take sick leave according to social characteristics such as unionization, gender and age. Being a
public or private sector employee has little if any effect on the rate of sick leave taken. Take
note politicians.

 Public service workers are allowed to be absent for reasons of illness, but are not allowed to do
less work because they were sick.

So the question becomes the following: since 3.7 million Canadians in the private and public
sector require about 12.4 days of sick leave per year, how do other Canadians manage illness
and work? Or do they manage? Maybe this is the question that should be the focus of public
policy for those who ask the really tough questions about illness and work.

In typical Conservative fashion, Minister misleads Canadians

 In an interview with Kathryn May posted on October 29 on the Ottawa Citizen website (and
published in the October 30 edition of the Citizen), Treasury Board President Tony Clement
claimed that there is nothing nefarious about the labour relations provisions hidden within the
mammoth budget implementation bill, Bill C-4. As an example, Minister Clement explained to
Canadians who have not read the bill what he considers the fairness of the proposed changes to
the essential services process. Minister Clement gave the following reassurance to Canadians:
“Let me be clear. I cannot wake up one day after a bad bargaining session with the bargaining
agent and say that is it; they are all going to be essential,” said Clement. “We cannot do that. It
would be absurd. The designation has to occur before the bargaining takes place.”

Even if Minister Clement denies it, he will be allowed to change the designation of essential
services at will.

 Yet Minister Clement is well aware of the fact that the proposed changes to the essential
services process will definitely allow him to do such a thing, as absurd as it may be. Section
120(1) and (2) of Bill C-4 read: “ 120(1) The employer has the exclusive right to designate the
positions in a bargaining unit that include duties that, in whole or in part, are or will be
necessary for the employer to provide essential services, and the employer may exercise that

right at any time. (2) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as limiting the employer’s right under
subsection (1).” (emphasis added)

I expect that Minister Clement’s office will be issuing a news release shortly explaining that only
Nigel Wright knew about these provisions of Bill C-4.

Claude Poirier

L’idéologie à l’épreuve des faits – Le gouvernement
conservateur cible les congés de maladie, mais
s’appuie sur des données fausses
Blogue de Claude Poirier, président de l’ACEP

Les attaques du gouvernement conservateur contre les syndicats de la fonction publique sont
tellement nombreuses que c’en est lassant. Je voudrais réagir cette semaine à la charge contre
l’utilisation des congés de maladie dans la fonction publique. Nous savons que ce sera le
principal point d’attaque des prochaines négociations et cela explique pourquoi le projet de loi
d’exécution du budget C-4 renferme de nombreuses dispositions qui bousculent le rapport de
force entre le gouvernement et les syndicats en 2014.

 Après avoir entendu le ministre Clement répéter que l’utilisation des congés de maladie était
trop élevée dans le secteur public, l’étude de Statistique Canada intitulée Comprendre l’écart
des absences du travail entre les secteurs public et privé et publiée le 19 septembre 2013 remet
les pendules à l’heure. Nous savons que les Conservateurs ne pensent pas qu’une étude fiable
devrait faire obstacle à leur idéologie, mais ladite étude établit néanmoins des populations
statistiques comparables dans les secteurs privé et public. Elle formule aussi des observations
concernant l’effet de ces grands secteurs de travail sur l’absence du travail.

La question de l’absentéisme, en particulier l’absentéisme dans la fonction publique, suscite un
débat public. Ce qui nous manquait jusqu’à maintenant, c’est un ensemble de populations
comparables qui permettrait d’isoler le facteur « secteur public », en quelque sorte, et de
mesurer son effet sans interférence de facteurs inconnus ou non contrôlés. C’est exactement ce
que fait l’étude de Statistique Canada : elle contrôle la constitution des populations des secteurs
privé et public et mesure ensuite la différence dans le nombre de jours d’absence du travail.
L’étude conclut qu’il y a 0,8 jour d’absence de plus dans le secteur public lorsque des
populations comparables sont étudiées. Comparez cela au message du ministre Clement qui
affirme que les fonctionnaires utilisent jusqu’à 15 jours de congé de maladie payé par année, en
comparaison d’une moyenne de 6,7 jours par leurs homologues du privé.

 Les auteurs du rapport utilisent trois variables pour caractériser la population du secteur public.
Premièrement, contrairement à la population générale du secteur privé, la population du
secteur public est syndiquée. Seulement 1,6 million de Canadiens du secteur privé ont une
convention collective qui établit en partie leurs conditions de travail, notamment comment et
quand ils peuvent s’absenter du travail, alors que 2,1 millions de Canadiens du secteur public
ont de telles conventions collectives. Bien que les chiffres absolus soient comparables, le taux de
syndicalisation de chaque secteur est considérablement différent. Dans le secteur privé, 19 %
des employés sont syndiqués, alors que 76 % des employés du secteur public le sont. Par

conséquent, si l’on isole le facteur « secteur public » afin de déterminer dans quelle mesure il
explique l’absentéisme dans le secteur public, il faut alors comparer les taux d’absence du
secteur public aux taux d’absence des employés syndiqués du secteur privé. En d’autres mots, il
ne faut pas comparer des pommes et des oranges.

Congés de maladie: la différence entre le secteur privé et le secteur public est 0,8 jour par
année.

 Les deux chercheurs de Statistique Canada vont plus loin pour caractériser la population du
secteur public dans le but d’isoler avec plus de certitude le facteur « secteur public ». Il y a
proportionnellement plus de femmes dans le secteur public; et les employés du secteur public
sont en moyenne plus âgés que dans le secteur privé présentement. D’où la nécessité de
contrôler ces facteurs, également pour isoler le facteur « secteur public ». Les chercheurs notent
que les hommes s’absentent moins souvent que les femmes et que les travailleurs plus âgés
sont absents plus souvent que les plus jeunes. L’âge et le sexe expliquent en partie la différence
du taux d’absentéisme entre les secteurs privé et public.

Après avoir contrôlé toutes ces variables, c’est-à-dire lorsqu’il est tenu compte de la
syndicalisation, du sexe et de l’âge, la différence entre le secteur privé et le secteur public est
inférieure à un jour par année, soit 0,8 jour par année.

 Ce que l’étude de Statistique Canada ne mesure pas cependant, c’est la perte de travail
résultant de l’absence du travail. Pour qu’il y ait un coût pour l’employeur et le contribuable
dans le secteur public, il faut que moins de travail soit abattu par suite des absences. Est-ce bien
ce qui se passe en réalité? En grande partie, la réponse est non. À l’exception de certains types
d’emploi directement au service du public, lorsque les fonctionnaires reviennent au travail après
une ou deux journées de congé de maladie, ils constatent que le travail qu’ils auraient
normalement accompli pendant ces journées d’absence les attend et qu’ils doivent le faire en
plus du travail courant. En d’autres mots, il est inexact de parler du coût des absences du travail.
Les fonctionnaires finissent par travailler davantage pour rattraper ce qu’ils n’ont pas fait
pendant leur absence. Bref, la plupart des fonctionnaires sont autorisés à s’absenter pour
raisons de maladie, mais ils ne sont pas autorisés à travailler moins parce qu’ils sont malades. Ici
également, il n’y a pas de coût réel pour l’employeur ou le contribuable.

Si les fonctionnaires sont autorisés à s’absenter pour raisons de maladie, ils ne sont pas
autorisés à travailler moins parce qu’ils sont malades.

Est-ce le cas aussi dans le secteur privé? C’est probablement vrai quand le travail n’est pas
répétitif et non circonscrit par les événements. Si nous faisons un pas de plus que l’étude de
Statistique Canada, qu’est-ce que cela dit des études de perte de productivité en raison des
congés de maladie, que ce soit dans le secteur privé ou public?

 Pour être significatives, les études devraient comparer la productivité entre des populations de
travailleurs au sein d’une même organisation. Elles devraient identifier une mesure objective du
travail accompli par une population de travailleurs qui n’ont pas pris de congés de maladie et la
comparer à la même mesure objective du travail abattu par une population ayant une moyenne
déterminée de congés de maladie pris pendant la même période.

 En conclusion, l’étude de Statistique Canada intitulée Comprendre l’écart des absences du
travail entre les secteurs public et privé fait une importante contribution pour notre

compréhension des congés de maladie. Les Canadiens prennent des congés de maladie suivant
des caractéristiques sociales telles que la syndicalisation, le sexe et l’âge. Être un employé du
secteur privé ou du secteur public n’a peu sinon aucun effet sur le taux d’absentéisme pour
maladie. Prenez note politiciens.

La question à poser est comment les autres Canadiens gèrent-ils la maladie et le travail s’ils ne
peuvent pas prendre de congés de maladie?

 La question à poser est donc la suivante : puisque 3,7 millions de Canadiens des secteurs privé
et public prennent environ 12,4 jours de congé de maladie par année, comment les autres
Canadiens gèrent-ils la maladie et le travail? Mais les gèrent-ils? C’est peut-être là la question
sur laquelle devrait se pencher la politique publique, pour ceux qui posent des questions
vraiment difficiles sur la maladie et le travail.

Le ministre, fidèle à la pratique conservatrice, trompe les Canadiens

 Dans une entrevue accordée à Kathryn May et affichée sur le site Web du Ottawa Citizen (et
publiée dans l’édition du 30 octobre du Citizen), le ministre Tony Clement affirme qu’il n’y a rien
d’odieux dans les dispositions sur les relations de travail cachées dans le projet de loi
mammouth d’exécution du budget C-4. À titre d’exemple, le ministre Clement explique aux
Canadiens qui n’ont pas lu le projet de loi ce qu’il y a d’équitable dans les modifications
proposées au processus des services essentiels. Le ministre, cité par le journal, cherche à
rassurer les Canadiens : « Soyons clairs. Je ne peux me réveiller un jour après une mauvaise
séance de négociations avec l’agent négociateur et me dire qu’assez c’est assez : ils seront tous
désignés essentiels », affirme Clement. « Nous ne pouvons pas faire ça. Ce serait absurde. La
désignation doit se faire avant les négociations. »

 Malgré ses dénis, le ministre Clement pourra modifier comme bon il lui semble qui est un
travailleur essentiel dans la fonction publique.

 Pourtant le ministre Clement sait très bien que les modifications proposées au processus des
services essentiels lui permettront de faire exactement cela, aussi absurde que cela puisse être.
Voici le texte de l’article 120(1) et (2) du projet de loi C-4 : « 120. (1) L’employeur a le droit
exclusif de désigner des postes au sein de l’unité de négociation dont tout ou partie des
fonctions sont ou seront nécessaires pour lui permettre de fournir des services essentiels; il peut
exercer ce droit en tout temps. (2) La présente loi n’a pas pour effet de porter atteinte au droit
conféré à l’employeur par le paragraphe (1). » (C’est nous qui soulignons.)

Je m’attends à ce que le bureau du ministre Clement publie sous peu un communiqué disant
que seul Nigel Wright était au courant de ces dispositions du projet de loi C-4.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nine surprises found in the Harper
government’s latest omnibus budget bill
Bill Curry, The Globe and Mail, November 5, 2013

The Harper government has shut down second-reading debate of its latest omnibus
budget bill, C-4, sending it to committee last week for more detailed study. Opposition
MPs expressed exasperation in the Chamber at yet another large bill packed full of legal
changes that are not fully comprehensible at first glance.

Here are some highlights.

Treasury Board President Tony Clement. (Jon Blacker/REUTERS)

1. Cracking down on federal unions
To federal unions, the budget bill’s labour provisions are tantamount to a declaration of
war. On the eve of a new round of collective bargaining, the government is moving to
limit the right to strike by giving itself full responsibility to declare which workers
perform an “essential” service and are therefore not allowed to strike.
Treasury Board President Tony Clement said the government plans to use this power
responsibly to protect the public. The minister argues that determining which jobs are
essential should not be a bargaining chip available to unions. Labour leaders point to Mr.
Clement’s recent rhetoric criticizing unions as evidence that the changes are an attack on
labour rights.

(Darryl Dyck/THE CANADIAN PRESS)

2. Narrowing the definition of ‘dangerous work’

Federally regulated workers – a category that includes people working in the rail sector,
at airports and in pipeline construction – have the right to refuse dangerous work. The
budget bill narrows the definition of danger in the Canada Labour Code.
The new definition is about half as long as the old definition. It defines danger as “any
hazard, condition or activity that could reasonably be expected to be an imminent or
serious threat to the life or health of a person exposed to it before the hazard or condition
can be corrected or the activity altered.”
The old definition allowed for the possibility of long-term danger, with a line that said
danger “includes any exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to result in a
chronic illness, in disease or in damage to the reproductive system.” Unions warn the
government is putting lives at risk.
The federal labour program receives between 150 and 200 work refusals a year. Labour
Minister Kellie Leitch argues that between 2000 and 2010, more than 80 per cent of the
refusals to work have been determined to be situations of no danger.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. (Chris Wattie/REUTERS)

3. New regime for Employment Insurance funds
The budget bill marks the official end of a Conservative experiment that never got off the
ground.
In 2008, the size of the Employment Insurance account surplus had grown to $57-billion,
but because it is not a standalone account, the money had already been spent over the
years on other things. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced a reset that year, giving
the fund $2-billion and announcing a new Crown corporation called the Canada
Employment Insurance Financing Board that would set premium rates so that the fund
breaks even over time and is removed from political decision-making. Then the recession
hit and the Conservatives overruled the board year after year.
The latest budget bill officially shuts down the board. In its place, new legislation
requires the government to set rates so that the fund balances over a seven-year period.

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander. (Peter Power/The Globe and Mail)

4. Employer-immigrant match-maker service
Immigration Minister Chris Alexander calls these changes “transformational.” By Jan. 1,
2015, Ottawa wants to have a new “Expression of Interest” system in place that will
match potential immigrants with employers looking for skilled workers. Under the plan,
prospective immigrants will fill out an online form that outlines their skills. The
government will give their application a score and ranking. Only those applicants who are
of interest to provinces or employers would receive invitations to apply for permanent
residence.
NDP immigration critic Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe tried and failed to have these
changes separated from the budget bill and studied on their own.

Justice Marc Nadon. (Adrian Wyld/CANADIAN PRESS)

5. Saving a troubled Supreme Court appointment
The government likes to say that all contents of budget bills were first mentioned in its
budget speeches and documents, but this is a clear example to the contrary.
In an attempt to address a controversy over Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent
appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court, the government is changing
the Supreme Court Act. Justice Nadon is from the Federal Court of Appeal and it is not
clear whether he qualifies for one of the seats on the Supreme Court that are reserved for
Quebec judges. The budget bill change states that a person may be appointed a Supreme
Court judge “if, at any time, they were a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing
at the bar of a province.” Justice Nadon has stepped aside from the court because his
appointment is facing a legal challenge.

(Dave Chan for The Globe and Mail)

6. Expanded conflict-of-interest rules
The budget bill gives cabinet new powers to expand the number of individuals under the
Conflict of Interest Act, which governs cabinet ministers and senior public servants. The
government says the reason for this is to bring a handful of MPs who sit on cabinet
committees under the Act. However, some experts say the change opens the door to much
broader use.
Guy Giorno, a lawyer and former chief of staff to Mr. Harper, recently told The Globe
that the powers are “sweeping” and could be used by cabinet in a number of ways. "It
could be used to bring backbench MPs under the Conflict of Interest Act, as well as
opposition leaders, House of Commons employees, and anyone else the cabinet wants,”
he said.

(Sean Kilpatrick/CANADIAN PRESS)

7. Canada Pension Plan directors can live outside Canada
There are eight factors that currently disqualify someone from serving as one of the 12
directors on the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Among them, having an
“unsound mind” and being bankrupt. Another reason for disqualification is not living in
Canada. The budget bill changes this so that “no more than three of the 12 directors
reside outside Canada.” A Finance Canada official said the change will help the board,
which manages $183.3-billion in assets, access “a more diversified international talent
pool” and is important given the volume of CPPIB assets that are invested outside of
Canada.

(Rebecca Cook/REUTERS)

8. Tackling tax avoidance
Canada is part of a worldwide push by governments to close tax loopholes and prevent
individuals and companies from shifting income and profits across borders in order to
avoid paying taxes. The budget bill includes a wide range of technical changes that are
part of that effort. For instance, there are sections that aim to tighten the rules around
property sales to ensure taxes can’t be avoided.

(Stock photo)

9. Ending Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corp. tax credit
The bill also includes changes that phase out the Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital
Corporations tax credit. This 15 per cent tax credit currently applies to up to $5,000
invested in Labour Sponsored Investment Funds. These are corporations sponsored by
labour groups that invest in Canadian businesses with less than 500 employees and less
than $50-million in assets. According to TD Waterhouse, LSIFs account for
approximately 40 per cent of all venture capital raised in Canada.
----------------------------------------------

Tony Clement on CTV Power Play on Union
Battle looming and right-to-work legislation

Click on the link below:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/power-play-with-don-martin

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tories' Right-To-Work Motion Marks 'Shift
To The Far Right': Critics
Sunny Freeman, Huffington Post Canada, November 5, 2013

Canadian labour leaders say they are disturbed — but not shocked — that the Tories have
adopted a number of union-busting measures in their official party policy, including
support for U.S.-style right-to-work legislation.

Delegates at the Conservative party convention in Calgary last weekend nearly
unanimously supported policy proposals that would require enhanced financial
transparency from unions and allow members to opt out of contributions to political and
social causes.

But the most troubling resolutions for union brass were two successful resolutions that
indicated Conservatives support controversial right-to-work legislation that might one
day find its way into the government’s platform.

“The Conservatives, at both the federal and Ontario level, have taken a hard shift to the
far right, adopting some of the most extreme U.S. Republican-style labour policies,” said
York University Labour Law professor David Doorey.

“This plays well to the Conservative base, and I suspect the government will carry
through with much of the platform.”

There are already two private members bills before Parliament that would erode union
power. Bill C-525 would allow secret ballots in union certification and Bill C-377 would
increase unions’ financial reporting. Labour leaders said it’s no surprise those issues were
taken up as official party policy and expect a bill on opting out of political contributions
to follow.

The policies approved by the grassroots of the party at the convention become party
policy but don’t necessarily become part of an election platform or legislation.

The most hotly debated of the labour reforms was one that states the party believes
“mandatory union membership and forced financial contributions as a condition of
employment limit the economic freedom of Canadians and stifle economic growth.”

It passed with the support of 66 per cent of delegates, but some spoke out against the
measure, which calls into question the tenets of the Rand formula, a staple of Canadian
labour relations that requires all employees in a unionized environment to pay union dues
regardless of whether they join.

“If we adopt this motion we are engaging in something that is highly controversial,” said
one delegate.

That opened the doors to an affirmative vote on a policy that explicitly mentions support
for a “right-to-work legislation to allow optional union membership”, which passed with
a clear majority.

Right-to-work laws would allow workers to refuse to pay the often hundreds of dollars a
year in union dues, yet still receive the benefits the union provides in a workplace.
Proponents of the laws argue that union wage and benefit demands hurt the economy and
encourage employers to ship jobs to cheaper jurisdictions where non-unionized workers
are willing to work for less.

But critics, including U.S. President Barack Obama, say the laws have the effect of
giving workers the right to work for less pay.

The issue was thrust into the spotlight in Canada after Michigan, which borders Ontario
and competes for manufacturing jobs, passed a right-to-work bill in December, making
Michigan the 24th right-to-work state.

Ontario Progressive Conservative party Leader Tim Hudak supported Michigan’s move
and has claimed General Motors moved its Camaro production to Lansing, Mich. because
of the newly enacted right to work laws.

Several union members gathered outside the convention to protest against the Harper
government, which has introduced back-to-work legislation and a re-examination of
“essential services,” where employees are unable to strike.

Inside, observers from the Canadian Labour Congress could only watch as party
members showed their willingness to support anti-union measures.

Ken Georgetti, president of the CLC, said some of the resolutions met with more
resistance than he was expecting.

 “These aren’t overwhelming mandates that they’re getting,” he said of the most extreme
labour reforms, adding that he believes some of the delegates have been misinformed
about the perceived benefits of right to work.

“This is not responsible governance or leadership. You don’t counsel people to get free
rides in Canada -- you counsel them to pay their fair share,” he said of the legislation that
would allow employees to opt out of union dues in a unionized shop.

Meanwhile, Terrance Oakey, president of Merit Canada, celebrated after delegates on the
floor passed all of the labour reforms his group has been working for.

“This is reflective of broad public opinion,” he said.

“Being at the convention it was clear that the mood in the party reflects the mood in the
country that something needs to be done on these issues so I wasn’t surprised.”

 Oakey said right-to-work legislation is appealing to more members of the party as an
increasing number of jobs, especially manufacturing jobs in Ontario, are lost to right-to-
work states in the U.S. Some believe that enacting domestic right-to-work legislation
would help to stem that tide.

But the right-to-work amendment that’s now part of party policy was extreme even for
Oakey. Merit, he said, is not aiming to take away union funding and supports the Rand
formula. But Oakey believes modern labour organizations are going beyond their Rand
rights by forcing members to fund political causes they don’t support. Canada is the only
country in the world that prevents members from opting out, he added.

Oakey doesn’t believe the Harper government will be in any rush to introduce right-to-
work legislation, nor would it have much effect as Ottawa is responsible only for federal
employees, while the provinces are responsible for regulating the majority of workplaces.

“Prime Minister Harper tends to be an incrementalist, I think he’s likely to watch how the
three less contentious issues are dealt with … but I don’t expect a right-to-work policy
coming forward -- at least from the government.”

Still, he said, it is indicative of a party that has grown frustrated with the modern labour
movement.

Jerry Dias, president of Unifor, the country’s largest union, said the moves are little more
than the Conservatives trying to find a new enemy to obfuscate the real issues, including
their own accountability crisis in the Senate scandal.

“If you look at all the things that have happened to the Conservatives, they need a wedge
issue and they need someone to point the finger at so either they’re going to go after
crime or go after unions.”

And while he is highly concerned that the Tories are following the right wing of the U.S.
Republicans, he doesn’t believe Canadians will accept right-to-work measures once they
learn more about their effects, including higher worker fatality rates, lower family
incomes and poorer infrastructure, he said, citing studies of the effects in right-to-work
states.

“If they are looking to pick a fight that will eliminate the working class in Canada, then
there is going to be a strong reaction.”

---------------------------------------------------------------

Ottawa judges thumbing noses at strict
new victims’ surcharge rules
By Andrew Seymour, Ottawa Citizen November 8, 2013

OTTAWA — Ottawa judges are openly rebelling against a Conservative government law
that doubled victim fine surcharges and made them mandatory for anyone convicted of a
crime, giving offenders up to 60 years to pay the fine or — in one case — not ordering it
at all.

Judges are essentially thumbing their noses at the new law, made mandatory on Oct. 24,
that removed the court’s discretion to waive the fee if the person couldn’t afford to pay it.
The change was part of the Conservative government’s Increasing Offenders
Accountability for Victims Act, and followed complaints by victims’ rights advocates
that judges were waiving the surcharge too freely.

“I’m told it is fully automatic, that these troublesome judges have been relieving against
it and not charging it, so the government likes to put a stop to that kind of thing by
troublesome judges who feel their independence,” Ontario Court Justice Peter Coulson
said Wednesday after sentencing a crack addict who had stolen seven chocolate bars from
a Dollarama Store to eight days in jail.

“I have ruled that he not have to pay the Victim Fine Surcharge. Let the chips fall where
they may. The bureaucrats may feel that it happens anyway no matter what the judge
says,” said Coulson.

That same day, Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey invited a defence lawyer to
make a constitutional challenge to the new law.

The 31-year-old man, who had just pleaded guilty to stealing a bottle of rum from the
LCBO, had no means to pay the $100 victim fine surcharge, said his lawyer, Doug Baum.

“If I granted him 50 years to pay that victim fine surcharge, would that appropriately
reflect the ends of justice?” asked Perkins-McVey.

“Did you say 50 years?” asked federal prosecutor Bill Boutzouvis to laughter in the
courtroom.

“I am required to take into account a person’s ability to pay, whether it is restitution or a
fine, and I am left with a situation where we have a gentleman who has pleaded guilty
and has done any jail time that may be required and I am precluded from in any way
considering his ability to pay except in as much as granting extended time to pay,” said
Perkins-McVey.

“I hear where you are coming from; it’s just the 50-year time frame seems a little bleak,”
said Boutzouvis. “Fifty plus his age, I mean, effectively he will be excused from making
a payment on the victim fine surcharge for his natural life.”

The next day, Ontario Court Justice Jacqueline Loignon upped the ante, giving a 19-year-
old homeless man who breached his release conditions not to drink alcohol 60 years to
pay. Other judges have given 25 and 15 years to pay.

The judges have also found other loopholes to minimize the mandatory victim surcharge,
which is $100 for summary conviction offences and $200 for indictable offences, by
handing out fines instead.

In one Ottawa case, a judge handed out a $1 fine on top of probation, resulting in a victim
fine surcharge of 30 cents. The law says the victim fine surcharge is 30 per cent of any
fine.

Unlike other provinces, Ontario doesn’t have a fine option program that allows offenders
of limited means to work off their victim fine surcharges by doing community service.
Nonpayment of the fines in Ontario leads to jail.

Newfoundland is in a similar situation, although Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince
Edward Island have limited programs.

“The judicial reaction is in direct response to the absurdity of the legislation,” said
Michael Spratt, an Ottawa defence lawyer and outspoken critic of the “wrong-headed
legislation.”

Spratt said he’s heard of similar incidents in other parts of the province.

“The judges’ concerns about the mandatory nature of the surcharge is completely
warranted and something Parliament should have been alive to,” said Spratt. “I fully
expect that there will be a successful constitutional challenge to the validity of this
legislation.”

But the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime who lobbied for mandatory
victim fine surcharges, Steve Sullivan, called the new trend by Ontario judges disturbing
and concerning.

“I think most people would think they should be applying the law as written,” said
Sullivan, now the executive director of Ottawa Victim Services.