Evidence of meeting #106 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was benefits.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you.
Ms. Hart, you heard my questions and you know the issues. As a lawyer, what action do you recommend union members should be taking, and will they do so?
11:45 a.m.
Seth Sazant
In terms of our recommendations to members, we are in the process of making sure that our members have all the information they need to be able to assess whether their situation would be best dealt with through the PSHCP appeal process or whether their situation would be appropriate for the grievance process.
We are prepared, certainly, to assist our members to file individual grievances to address some of the issues that they've experienced and to get compensation through that venue, as well as through the broader systemic policy grievance that we are filing in each affected bargaining unit.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you. I have to cut you off there. Thanks very much.
Mr. Bachrach, go ahead, please.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm coming into this study partway through, so there is some testimony that I'm less familiar with.
Assumedly, PSAC has talked to the government about these challenges. I'm wondering if you can characterize the government's response, whether it's been adequate, whether you're familiar with some of the testimony that the committee has already heard and what we should make of that.
11:45 a.m.
Seth Sazant
We were certainly paying close attention during the testimony at the last meeting of this committee.
We hear concern, absolutely, from the employer's officials, but we're concerned less about what they say and more about what they do. Again, we do see some improvements happening, but we think there is still an awfully long way to go here.
We certainly will need to see our members be made whole at the end of this process—those who have suffered health consequences or financial consequences. This isn't theoretical. We're still in the process of.... I was speaking with a member very recently who's carrying more than $8,000 on their credit card because they don't have any way to be reimbursed.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We haven't seen the full terms of the contract, but I think we can assume that the six-month grace period makes it difficult to secure accountability from Canada Life to force Canada Life to make those members whole for the problems that occurred during that period.
Do you believe that it's then the government's responsibility to make your members whole for things that they suffered during that six-month grace period?
11:45 a.m.
Seth Sazant
Yes, it's responsible for that portion and beyond. We believe that ultimately it's the employer that's accountable to provide the benefits they have promised to our members.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'm going to address my questions to Ms. Hart, general counsel for the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Thank you for being here.
We have seen, in the course of the last eight years with this government, significant growth simultaneously in the public service and in spending on outsourcing. You would expect that these things would be, in some sense, inversely proportional. If you had more capacity in the public service, you would have less outsourcing, or, if you had a declining public service, you might see more instances of outsourcing. Strangely, we're seeing growth on both those levels. We're expanding the public service, and we're sending more work outside of government.
This committee, as you know, has been doing work on the arrive scam scandal, which seems to demonstrate that, not only are we outsourcing, but we're outsourcing the process of outsourcing. In the case of GC Strategies, they were not hired to do work; we outsourced the process of doing the outsourcing. This is particularly bizarre to me. It seems that the public service, if they don't have the capacity to do certain work internally, should at least have the capacity to directly identify the people who can do the work and do that outsourcing work directly rather than having multiple layers of outsourcing in between.
I want to ask if PSAC has made representations to senior levels of the public service or to ministers directly about these issues of outsourcing. What kinds of conversations have you had with ministers about this, and what kind of feedback have you gotten?
11:50 a.m.
Seth Sazant
I think this might be one of the issues where, in order to provide a more fulsome response, we may want to submit a brief to the committee afterwards.
I can say, as my colleague mentioned previously, the issue of outsourcing is of huge concern to PSAC. It is an issue that is raised at the bargaining table. It is an issue that is constantly raised at political levels. We would definitely agree with what you've said, and we share those concerns, absolutely. We will continue, through the avenues that I've mentioned, to try to address the problem of over-outsourcing. As my colleague said, we do think that it's more efficient to use the members we have.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you.
I think this committee is very interested in PSAC's perspective on this issue so, if you have additional thoughts, you can provide them to the committee in writing.
There are different aspects of the arrive scam work we've been doing. There are the particulars of the scandal, of course, with missing records and rigged processes, but there's also the question of how this government is allowing so much money to be spent outside as well as inside government.
I want to ask you about another aspect of that, which is the concern about reprisals against public servants, following testimony at this committee. We had an instance where two senior public servants appeared before this committee and, in response to questions, gave testimony that was critical of the people they reported to. They were told immediately after that they were under investigation. They were subsequently suspended without pay in the middle of an investigation. How rare is it that this would happen? What are your reflections on this suspicious timeline, this suspicious train of events?
11:50 a.m.
Seth Sazant
PSAC is concerned about any incident of reprisal and retaliation. This is why we see things like adequate whistle-blower protection legislation, which we have been advocating for for years upon years, as being absolutely critical.
In terms of the specific situation you've referred to, I don't know that we have details on those individuals, so I'm not able to speak to that, unfortunately.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
That's okay. Perhaps I can ask you on a general level.
I'm getting the impression from what you said that you think whistle-blower protections are not adequate right now. Can you comment, on a policy level, on whistle-blower protection? In a hypothetical case in which somebody may have seen something on a scandal issue that they want to share as frank evidence with a parliamentary committee.... They have an obligation, frankly, to respond truthfully to questions that are asked.
Do you think the protections are adequate for public servants to be able to do that or not?
11:50 a.m.
Seth Sazant
We would say that they definitely need to be improved and enhanced. We have made submissions in various forums before on this issue, and we would be happy to collect and gather that for the committee if that would be useful.
I'll turn to my colleague as he may have something to add on this issue as well.
11:55 a.m.
Seth Sazant
I simply want to add that we have brought whistle-blowing to the bargaining table for multiple rounds now. We've tried to get better language into our collective agreements, because we have heard fears from our members about reprisals in whistle-blowing. Every time we have been uncategorically rebuffed at the bargaining table.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
That's interesting.
Thank you very much.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you to our witnesses. I appreciate your testimony. This is very important.
If you want to follow up in writing on the whistle-blower protection as well, that's fine. I'm very concerned about it. It directly impacts our work as a committee.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much for being here with us today and shedding some light on this concerning issue. Again, to see the challenges that our public sector workers and retirees have faced during the transition is reprehensible, but we're happy to see that there is some progress being made here to iron out those challenges.
You mentioned this was the most significant update that we've seen in the PSHCP since 2006, with over 70 changes that had been hard-fought and won. I wanted to ask you about one in particular. In the communications that I've read and heard, it was depicted as a significant victory for the LGBTQS community. Some of the changes that were introduced were specifically around coverage for gender-affirming care.
Are you able to speak about those changes that were introduced, and why it was so important for your membership?
11:55 a.m.
Seth Sazant
Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
Yes, a new benefit was introduced for a lifetime benefit related to gender affirmation procedures. We're certainly proud to have been victorious in bringing in a new benefit for our transgender members. This benefit covers processes and procedures that may not be covered by the public plans. This is something that has been growing recently in private insurance plans, such as the public service health care plan, to provide for gender-affirming procedures and to provide coverage for those procedures.
As the landscape expands, this is something that we're seeing more and more often, and we're very happy to be victorious on introducing this benefit.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Coverage is expanding for gender-affirming care—life-saving care, many would argue.
Is there a concern among the membership about the conversations that we're hearing from the Conservative Leader of the Opposition and the Premier of Alberta that there are limitations that are going to be placed on gender-affirming care, which is often described as life-saving?
Have you heard membership concerns on that issue?
11:55 a.m.
Seth Sazant
Absolutely. As a union we represent all of our members, and we take great pride in introducing new measures that provide significant benefits for our transgender members and our LGBTQ members. Any time that we believe there are discussions out there that may be negatively impacting some of our equity-seeking groups, this is absolutely a serious concern for us.