Finance Committee on Nov. 26th, 2013

[Robert Murray]

I know that the most recent experience we've been doing research in is actually that of the Ontario public sector, particularly pertaining to its education sector, primarily because of the fact that you now have a system where in the last couple of years it has become intrinsically broken, based on some of the unclear relationships.

Just returning to some of the previous testimony, if I may, I would argue that the time is now, that there is a crisis we are currently experiencing, so this type of discussion and debate is necessary. But where I would question it is in the way it's being done. If it is this important and expedient for budgetary purposes, political purposes, and labour purposes, etc., it would likely deserve its own consultation process and its own bill, in order for us to be able to more comprehensively examine some of these issues.

But to return to the question, if I could, in looking at some of the provincial jurisdictions pertaining to their education bargaining, what we've seen more recently is that government is notoriously bad when it's in the business of bargaining. In some of the discussions regarding public/private, Frontier has been fairly clear that one of the solutions that could be explored would be to privatize some of these crown corporations.

Canada Post is an interesting example, in that maintaining the right to strike in the private sector is one thing, as long as there is competition that is breeding and going alongside of it. Really, the size of government, the breadth of government, and government being in the business of bargaining in the first place have really complicated and in some cases convoluted matters.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have about two and a half minutes, Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say that I was a lawyer as well. I still am, I guess, as I'm told by the law society.

I notice that you were called to the bar in 1997. I was called in 1993, but I've been doing this for 10 years. Up until 2004, when I was elected, I had never seen anybody throw money that doesn't belong to them at others—like judges. What I mean is, in support cases, or when there's a determination of civil issues, judges, I found, would very easily throw money that didn't belong to them—money that belonged to the other party—at the aggrieved party. I will say that since that time I have changed my mind, because I've never seen anybody try to solve problems with money more than governments do.

I agree with the last speaker in what he said, which is that when governments run into problems, they throw money at the issue because it's easier than to deal with the bad press. It's a tough choice for a government to take the public service and say, listen, we have an issue, so let's take it back and let's look at the issue.

I see you agreeing with me, Ms. Blais.

What I'm getting at on this is that I'm one of those few people who actually thinks that crown prosecutors are not paid enough. In fact, in Fort McMurray, in my first year at the bar, I made double the money of the other crown prosecutors who had 10 years at the bar. Stats told me that. I looked at it and said there was no way I was going to be a public prosecutor, because they make $85,000 a year in Fort McMurray and you can't even live for that there.

Would you agree that statistics don't tell untruths generally?

[Lisa Blais]

I think that when it comes to my membership we're notoriously underpaid and—

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

But my question is about the stats. I mean—

[Lisa Blais]

The stats with our members? Yes.

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

Exactly.

[Lisa Blais]

Yes.

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

What do you say about the issue of only 100 firings out of 190,000 people? Do you not see that as—

[Lisa Blais]

I welcome that question, because if you look at our collective agreement, you'll see that we're the only union that has performance review embedded in our collective agreement. We can't run away from it.

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

So you would encourage other public sector unions to have that within their employment contracts with their people?

[Lisa Blais]

I think they'd welcome it as well. And if it's not in their collective agreement, they're already subject to performance review. We wonder why those guidelines aren't being implemented. If you want to fire a crown prosecutor for bungling a case, you can do it. It's just a question of implementing what's already there. I think I not only speak for the AJC, but I speak for every unionized employee who says “bring it on”.

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

Every unionized good employee who works hard.

[Lisa Blais]

And they do.

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

Yes, I agree. But isn't that who you're speaking for? The people who are not working hard don't want this to come in. I've heard the saying “hide and seek for a grand a week”, and I've heard this in the public union. I was part of CUPE at one time, and they will lose themselves within a building to not be found. “Hide and seek for a grand a week”—that's what they call it.

[Lisa Blais]

I'm fascinated by this obsession about these faceless, nameless people, because the tools are in place, and if there were employees in my shop—because I was in private practice for seven years—and they were hiding and seeking and surfing on the Internet, they'd be gone. Managers in the public service have those tools.

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

Why are there only about 100 out of 190,000? It seems—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

[Lisa Blais]

Why are we talking about performance management in the context of...[Inaudible—Editor]?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Order.

Mr. Jean, we are over time. We will have time to come back if you want in another round.

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, and welcome to all of our witnesses. I appreciate you being here.

I described you, Mr. Barrett, to my colleague Mr. Cuzner as the Wayne Gretzky of labour law, you'll be happy to know. And I mean that sincerely. I've admired your career for many years.

Your comments I think deserve a bit more amplification than the time you've had. You talked about the conflict inherent between the government as employer and legislator. Mr. Yussuff, before you came, made a comment on behalf of the CLC that it was like being an umpire and a player on the soccer field, to mix metaphors, I guess. Presumably that's why consultation is so vital when the government holds all the cards like this. The Supreme Court has made the point that consultation is essential.

You were the counsel, among others, in the Bill-29 case, where another right-wing government, where I live, was slapped down unceremoniously by the Supreme Court of Canada. Do you think this bill is subject to criticism of the same kind for lack of consultation in the amendments that are before us?

[Steven Barrett]

I think many witnesses who have appeared here seem to be of that view, including my friend from the Frontier Centre. That's one area where we actually agree. It's not that often necessarily that we agree, and I think when there's a concern being expressed by him and by me and by many others about the lack of consultation, you're exactly right. And it's not only consultation for the lack of consultation; it's consultation because the Supreme Court of Canada has actually said that before you run roughshod over workers' fundamental rights, you have to consult. It's consultation, because, as the Canadian Labour Congress emphasized this morning, it's particularly critical when—and I encounter this all the time because I do primarily bargaining in the public sector—government is always a player. Either they're a player because they fund, in the Ontario context, hospitals and school boards, so they have an acute interest in the outcome of collective bargaining, or, in the case of the Ontario or federal governments, they are the employer and therefore have a direct interest in the outcome of collective bargaining. In that context, I think the reason that historically every other government before this one has actually engaged in a meaningful degree of consultation before introducing these sorts of substantial changes is because they recognized that, and they've recognized the inappropriateness, given their inherent conflict of interest, of acting unilaterally without at least trying to build consensus, without at least getting input and involvement from the affected stakeholders.

There was a question earlier about other jurisdictions. One test of this is whether what the federal government is proposing here is consistent with the generally accepted approach across Canada, with Conservative governments, Liberal governments, the odd NDP government. Is it consistent with the approach that other governments take in collective bargaining with their own employees or employees in the broader public sector? The answer is an unequivocal no. It's outside of the bounds of what's considered fair and reasonable in at least two respects. One, when it comes to essential services, I've heard Minister Clement say that as a government, they need to worry about making sure they can have safety and security protected during a strike. No one disagrees with that. The fact is, though, that in every other jurisdiction that objective is met by allowing for some independent oversight, and not the government, which has a direct interest in who can strike, making that decision unilaterally.

Secondly, when it comes to arbitration, there is no other jurisdiction that requires an arbitrator in this context to give predominant weight to the government's unilaterally determined budgetary priorities and stacking the deck on the outcome.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Do I have time?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Oh, good.

I found that your written submissions were excellent. One of the comments you made was this:

When taken as a whole, the changes to essential services, strike and arbitration provisions in Bill C-4 threaten to essentially eliminate the union's bargaining power by making the right to strike hollow and the right to arbitrate meaningless in the case of a labour impasse.

Those are very strong words.