Finance Committee on Oct. 6th, 2011

[Michael Roschlau]

We're not particularly concerned about the source of it. We're more concerned about dedicating the investment to areas that will benefit all Canadians in terms of their day-to-day mobility in their communities. Recognizing the fiscal challenge we're up against right now, we've been very modest in terms of that request and focused more on tax policy and planning as a way of making sure we have our foundation right before we overextend ourselves financially.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Adler, please.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank all of you for being here today. It's all very helpful and very interesting.

My first question is to Mr. Tufts. It's not so much on the pension presentation today, but I'm really curious about an op-ed you wrote in the Telegraph-Journal recently, in which you said:

In Canada, no information is available on how unions spend their money or how much they collect in union dues. In the U.S., unions are required to fully disclose this information to the Department of Labor on an annual basis. In Canada, it is all hush hush.

Could you expand on that a bit?

[William Tufts]

I probably will be back to talk about the Hiebert bill that's been put forth, and I'll discuss it more fully then.

Anyway, there are some serious concerns about that, especially about the impact of unions in terms of driving the cost of public sector organizations in Canada.

One of the things that needs to be disclosed is how much money is going into pensions. Our information tells us that CUPE has 600,000 members, for example. They're charging $800 a year in union dues for each one of those members. If anybody has a quick calculator on them, it's about $480 million a year going to just one of the public sector unions. There are 3.2 million public sector employees, and 600,000 of them are in CUPE. It's $480 million going into just that 20% of the public sector.

We can see that it's certainly become a political consideration. In Ontario, we have the working families campaign. We have the firefighters for McGuinty. The front page in Winnipeg earlier this week was about firefighters for the new NDP premier out there.

There are some serious concerns about how that money is being spent by unions. If you look at the union concentration in Canada, it's the highest in the world. There is 70% of the public sector participating in public sector unions. That compares to the United States, which is around 35%.

I think there needs to be more transparency, and certainly there needs to be consideration as to whether Canadians need to be forced to mandatorily contribute to the union coffers, as well.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Yes. It's also interesting that it recently came to light that unions had sponsored at a recent NDP convention, which violates the Elections Canada Act.

In the spirt of fairness, since corporations have to pay taxes and individuals have to pay taxes, do you think trade unions should have to pay taxes?

[William Tufts]

I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to comment on that today. I haven't investigated unions fully enough to give you a qualified answer on that.

I'm here today to talk about the savings that can be accrued by making the public sector pensions equitable with what's happening in the private sector. In the presentation I made to this committee, you could save a couple of billion dollars on an annual basis just by requiring those employees to contribute 50%—

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

My next question is to Mr. Delestrade. With the word “trade” in your name, you have to be in favour of more open markets and free trade.

Some have suggested that in reaction to Buy American we implement Buy Canadian in this country. Do you think that's a good idea?

[Pierre Delestrade]

Yes, I think it's totally a good idea.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

So to compete with the Buy American, we should have a Buy Canadian.

[Pierre Delestrade]

Yes, but the policy your government is taking today is to focus more on the support we have to bring to the Canadian industry. If you look at the last speech by Julian Fantino, the associate minister for defence, he addressed this concern by saying you have to look at some more Canadian companies providing—

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

But that's just looking at Canadian companies as an option in a purely competitive process, not as the only possible suppliers to government procurement.

[Pierre Delestrade]

Yes. I think you have to be fully open—

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

You're in favour of open markets.

[Pierre Delestrade]

Yes, I think it's much better because it's the best value for the taxpayer.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

So a return to a Smoot-Hawley kind of atmosphere, where we shut down trade and adopt protectionist measures, you suggest would be a bad thing for this country. And what our government is pursuing, in terms of increased trade, bilateral agreements—we've had nine in the past five years—is a good thing, in your estimation.

[Pierre Delestrade]

I think so.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Okay, thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Mr. Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question goes to Mr. Delestrade.

You mentioned a problem with the costs of acquiring helicopters for Canada. I have studied the matter and I found that there were nine procurement committees, nine spare parts committees and nine separate maintenance contracts for those helicopters. For a fleet of 200 helicopters, Canada has chosen nine different kinds.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Just a moment, Mr. Giguère; someone is raising a point of order.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My point of order is simply that my device is out of batteries or something. I'd like to hear the question Mr. Giguère had. If you could have more time to ask the question again, I'd very much appreciate it.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Hold on a minute…

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The problem is not that we are buying new helicopters using different procedures. The problem is that we have no standardization policy in Canada. If we even had a semblance of one, we would not have nine models of helicopter, we would have three. We would have reduced the acquisition costs of those helicopters by two thirds. You are not saying much about that. Like everyone who wants to sell us defence materiel, you do not want to consolidate military procurement orders; you want to keep fragmenting them as much as you can. Am I wrong?

[Pierre Delestrade]

I do not quite share your point of view, and here is why. When you have to buy military materiel, it has to meet your needs, and it is not clear that a single supplier can fully do that. Suppliers do not necessarily have everything in their inventories. So you have to deal with several suppliers. How you deal with them is up to you.

In the document you have before you, in fact, I say more about the way in which you can deal with those suppliers and work with them. As for knowing whether there are several sources for acquisitions, indeed there are, and I think that it is up to each country to proceed along those lines according to its needs.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, since my colleague is an expert in Canadian pensions and has some important questions to ask about them, I will yield my remaining time to him.