Finance Committee on May 28th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 228 agreed to)

(On clause 229)

We have nine amendments on clause 229.

Ms. May, you have two amendments on clause 229, PV-10 and PV-11. You can address them together or separately, as you wish.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's very helpful, because they are related.

First of all, again, I'm happy to cooperate with the finance committee, at their invitation, but without prejudice to subsequent rights of members in my position.

I share all the concerns that you've heard expressed so far. I note earlier comments from my friends on the government benches that this government has respect for taxpayers' dollars—except for the $3.1 billion that can't be located right now by the Auditor General in relation to security spending.

The crown corporations and the extension of crown corporations, the interference in collective bargaining by representation of the Privy Council, is a step too far in terms of changing the arm's-length relationship between these crown corporations. The fiscal control over crown corporations comes in the fact that their budgets are approved. That controls any sense of illegitimate spending.

My first amendment is to the generic question of crown corporations and the interference in collective bargaining.

I particularly was impressed by the testimony of George Smith from Queen's University, who said this was in fact the “antithesis” of legislative reform in public sector collective bargaining, and that it contradicts the “spirit and intent” of the Canadian labour code.

That goes to my amendment 10, which is to specific crown corporations and to exclude them.

My amendment 11 is very much related to CBC and the independence of public broadcasting.

I draw to the attention of committee members the letter to the Prime Minister of Canada from some of the luminaries of Canadian broadcasting, including Joe Schlesinger, Hugh Winsor, Don Newman, and a constituent of my own from Pender Island, Patrick Brown, who used to be a CBC foreign correspondent. They point out that collective bargaining terms include such things as “Journalists cannot be pulled off assignments without good reason”, and “Journalists do not have to fear retribution....” These are collective bargaining terms that go directly to journalistic independence.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Is there any discussion on PV-10 or PV-11?

Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Chair, just for the record, I remain a little disappointed in Ms. May's intervention.

I'm happy to invite independent witnesses to partake in this discussion, but I find myself forced to correct the record. Outside of the discussion on this bill, Ms. May has raised some concerns about something entirely outside of the scope of what we're doing, which was false. The Auditor General has indicated very clearly that there is no missing money.

I would hope that when independent members come here and try to open a can of worms that really has nothing to do with the bill before us, they remember this for future requests for appearances, etc. We try to work collaboratively here as much as possible, and I would hope that Ms. May would honour that the next time she intervenes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I didn't try to come—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Order.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Nevertheless, I do want to say that, you know, it is the Conservatives who created the CBC. We have tremendous respect for broadcasting, and for public broadcasting in particular. This has nothing to do with funding daily operations; it has to do with the taxpayers' dollar and whether or not, when the CBC is making decisions about how the long-term effects of their financing are put into place...how that affects the taxpayer.

That is all. It will not interfere with the day-to-day operations in any way, shape, or form. It will not restrict journalistic ability to go after stories, etc. I just want to make that perfectly, perfectly clear.

I have a question for the witness on this process that's being introduced. Is it in practice in other areas of the federal government already?

[Dennis Duggan]

A similar process exists with respect to those organizations listed in schedule V of the FAA. They are separate agencies, and that includes the Canada Revenue Agency, CSIS, and a number of others.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

So there is nothing different in this legislation when you are comparing to the ones you just mentioned. We're just making sure they are following the same oversight measures.

[Dennis Duggan]

It's very similar, yes.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Caron, you have the floor.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I won't ask the witness any questions because, clearly, he works for the Department of Finance, right?

[Dennis Duggan]

Treasury Board.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Clearly, his role is not political. Our concerns are political.

Once again, Mr. Adler and Ms. Glover are assuring us that their intentions are good. Yet, we have heard witnesses say many times that this would open the door to interference and a loss of independence for the CBC, the Bank of Canada and any other Crown corporation. Although the other issues are of concern, we are more concerned with the independence of the Bank of Canada and the journalistic independence of the CBC. Not a single witness confirmed what the Conservative government has been saying since the bill was tabled. Some concerns are clear. The independent witnesses said so.

That the government wants to ignore that absolutely astounds me. Does the government not want to govern in a way that ensures that its institutions maintain the trust of Canadians? I understand that the government wants to reassure us. It is the only one that can, since no one besides us is saying the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. Merci.

All right. I'll move to the votes on PV-10 and PV-11.

(Amendments negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have NDP amendments 26 to 31. Do you want to deal with them separately?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, what I can do is explain each one very briefly and then just generally speak in reference to them.

Amendment NDP-26 would prevent Treasury Board from directing a crown corporation to violate the Canada Labour Code. We heard testimony from experts last week that these changes would violate the Canada Labour Code. These are experts in the field of collective bargaining. The amendment is important, because as the bill now stands, it would allow violations of the code without anyone taking responsibility. We think the government should be responsible for that.

I also want to say, with respect to the Canada Labour Code, that other committee members have talked about the testimony of George Smith. George Smith has four decades of experience in collective bargaining for crown corporations on behalf of management. He wasn't a labour negotiator with the labour side; he was a negotiator for management. He has decades of experience. He understands the challenges of collective bargaining and he understands the process. I don't know if any of the government members here have any of that experience, but he certainly does. I know I have that experience. He was very clear that these changes would impede fair collective bargaining and smooth labour relations in our crown corporations. It is a mystery why the government would want to create that kind of situation.

Let me proceed to amendment NDP-27, which would make it illegal to use the new powers to interfere with the journalistic integrity of the CBC. What has become very clear from numerous witnesses and from a very effective campaign that is being waged on this issue—I've had thousands of constituents contact my office about this—is that there are provisions around journalistic integrity and the nature of public broadcasting that are included in the terms and conditions of the collective agreement for CBC journalists. The fact that the President of the Treasury Board would have the power to override or direct the collective agreement and negotiations could clearly impinge on the journalistic integrity of the CBC.

We heard from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting that no other OECD country has this kind of provision. They were highlighting how dangerous this would be. This is not a power that governments should have. We're very concerned that these are dangerous new powers that the government would have.

Similarly, NDP-28 would make it illegal to impose requirements that interfere with the Bank of Canada's independence. We're very concerned that the Conservatives have chosen to give themselves these powers over the Bank of Canada. It certainly is troubling for Canadians and for the independence of our financial institutions to think that the government would want these powers, that they could perhaps discipline someone who works for the Bank of Canada for producing financial information that the government isn't pleased with. We've seen how public servants like the Parliamentary Budget Officer have been treated by this government. I would think that the employees of the Bank of Canada would be very nervous today contemplating these powers by the Conservative government.

Amendment NDP-29 would require the Treasury Board to make its bargaining mandates public after the ratification of a collective agreement. If the Treasury Board is mandating negotiations at crown corporations on behalf of the Canadian public, the public has a right to know what those mandates are. After ratification, when they wouldn't be able to influence the ratification, would be the appropriate time to inform the Canadian public.

Amendments NDP-30 and NDP-31 would remove the language that clarifies that the Treasury Board does not represent the crown corporation. This is in order to clarify the process at the bargaining table and ensure that the Treasury Board itself is held accountable for its actions, not to be confused with management on behalf of the crown corporation.

Mr. Chair, again, we find it very troubling that the President of the Treasury Board would want to be quarterbacking all collective bargaining of crown corporations in Canada. We worry about the independence of institutions like the Bank of Canada and the CBC. In fact, we find it rather shocking that this government would engage in giving itself these kinds of powers.

We believe that these amendments would go a long way to alleviating some of the concerns people have about these new powers and at least would add some clarity to what the government is undertaking.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Is there further discussion with respect to any of the NDP amendments, amendments NDP-26 to NDP-31?

No further discussion? Okay. I will go to a vote on NDP-26.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment NDP-27.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment NDP-28.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment NDP-29.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment NDP-30.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment NDP-31.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have amendment Liberal-8.

Does anyone want to move amendment Liberal-8?

Mélanie, do you want to move Liberal-8?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I just wanted to make sure you were watching, Mr. Chair.

Again, this is consistent with our concerns with regard to these changes. The government has not made the case as to why these changes are needed, and we've heard contrary evidence, not just from the CBC and the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, but from labour negotiation experts and practitioners who have represented the employers over the course of multiple decades of work.

Again, we are concerned with the direction of the government on this. As such, this amendment reflects those concerns.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Is there further discussion on amendment Liberal-8?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 229)

Is there discussion?

Monsieur Côté.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I would like to speak to clause 229.

Mr. Chair, I would like to share with committee members a memory from the 2006 campaign. It was my first election campaign. I met a couple of employment insurance employees who were working very hard. In fact, they were working six days and three evenings a week. I couldn't help but ask them how they could put up with such working conditions. They told me that they didn't want to penalize employment insurance recipients.

Let's go back to clause 229 and government interference. Actually, this also has to do with clause 228. I find it really quite dangerous that the government wants to influence the bargaining process for organizations as sensitive as the Bank of Canada and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

I want to focus on that last example. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is an agency that decides the fate and future of millions of Canadians. It really is very important. Obviously, the government is opening up a Pandora's box without knowing the situation, while its lack of judgment and interference in the process could lead to dysfunction.

I don't want to go over it again beyond a certain point, because my colleagues have already spoken about it, but a bargaining process aimed at signing a collective agreement is always delicate. It is already challenging when two parties are involved. When a third party joins the negotiations, it slows down the process. Imagine if it got out of hand and organizations as independent as the ones I mentioned became dysfunctional. It is absolutely unbelievable that we can expose Canadians to this kind of thing.

I'll stop there. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

(Clauses 229 to 231 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 232—Order in council)

We have amendment NDP-32.

Go ahead, Ms. Nash, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes, just briefly, Mr. Chair, this would amend clause 232 to say that it would come into force “five years after the day on which this Act receives royal assent”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 232 agreed to)

(On clause 233)

The final amendment is NDP-33.