Finance Committee on June 4th, 2015

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

In your presentation...

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You also refer to Bill C-4, which is an obstacle. It is not the first time that this government attacks the right to collective bargaining.

Does this all mean that this government does not like workers and does not like unionized workers? What is going on?

[Emmanuelle Tremblay]

We will admit that we don't feel a whole lot of love. We also perceive a lot of contempt when Tony Clement leaves the room where people are studying the budget, saying that he works for public servants who want to work and take their sick leave when they are really sick. What that sounds like to me is that according to him, we public servants take leave when we are not really sick. That is an insult.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Yes, there is a type of contempt there.

[Emmanuelle Tremblay]

We hear insults every day in the workplace.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, madam.

[Emmanuelle Tremblay]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Dionne Labelle.

We will go to Mr. Cannan, please.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for being here.

I would like to continue with the discussion, because we've had some other witnesses from Treasury Board. Officials appeared recently and talked about the numbers. We're looking at about 180,000 members, public servants who are affected by the proposed change? Is that correct?

[Robyn Benson]

The PSAC alone has about 145,000 members. So 150,000, yes.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

We are told that about 60% of the employees in the core public administration do not have enough banked sick leave to cover a full period of short-term disability; that's 13 weeks. Of the employees, 25% have fewer than 10 days of banked sick leave. Many employees, especially new and younger employees, whom I think Mr. Lee was alluding to, have no banked sick days at all. In contrast the select few, long-tenured individuals, including many executives, have far more banked sick days than they will ever reasonably need.

The issue is not.... It's trying to reform a system that's 40 or 60 years out of date. I met with the local president of the CBSA union. I was in a union and on strike at one time. I was in management of a unionized organization. I understand that we're trying to come up with a system that's fair not only today but in the future.

But as Mr. Lee alluded to, if 60% of our younger employees of the future don't have a system in place, then I will ask our public servants' representatives if they could share a little about how the present system compares to the one in the private sector—not that we need to lessen the standards, but that we're trying to modernize them.

Mr. Lee said that the university has a better system in place for younger employees than the public service has today. Maybe you could comment on that, please.

[Debi Daviau]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are not against looking at gaps in the system and modernizing it, based on the environment we're now faced with. What we're opposed to, and why we're in front of you today, is that this is the first time in our history as public service unions that we are facing this type of threat through budget legislation to deem a particular term and condition of our employment. It's the first time in history that government has resorted to this tactic.

We have spent an awful lot of time speaking about the merits of a modernized sick leave system. Certainly, Mr. Lee and some of the honourable members want to focus there. But that's really not what is being proposed in the act. What's being proposed is an enabling power to the Treasury Board to impose whatever conditions it chooses with regard to sick leave, on whoever it chooses.

We really ought to be focused on that. But if you want to get into the numbers game, 60% is a game with numbers. We've calculated that maybe 1% to 2% of our members will find themselves with not enough banked sick leave to meet long-term disability, because a very small percentage of members will find themselves on long-term disability.

The 60% comes from the following. If you have six members who will ultimately go on long-term disability, only two of them are likely to have the 13 weeks banked to get them there. Of the other four, three are within shooting range. What I mean by this is that you can advance credits up to 25 days, and that can get them to their long-term disability with their paycheques. Only one has fewer than the weeks required to be compensated while they're sick. And that person has somewhere around nine or 10 weeks, and may find themselves with a gap.

That's 1% to 2% of our membership. As Ms. Benson mentioned, I've been across this country speaking to our members, and not one member, young, middle-aged, or old, has told me that they think we need to fix the sick leave regime in order to benefit them. Quite the contrary. I've heard from women with breast cancer, from people who face chronic illness, all of whom told me that the sick leave regime that we have currently works.

Again, I urge you to focus on the budget implementation bill. It's about the unconstitutional provisions within it to impose terms and conditions and not allow us to freely and fairly collectively bargain that modernization of sick leave.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I appreciate that. I know that it's up for negotiation.

I want to change the channel for a minute to Mr. Astle, coming from Pratt & Whitney, a world leader in aerospace. My largest private employer, KF Aerospace, formerly Kelowna Flightcraft, has brought forward innovative ideas.

Could you walk the committee through what happens if my constituent comes forward with an innovative idea? How would that change with the proposed amendments versus the present legislation? Is there better protection for them?

[Jeffrey Astle]

Sure, I'll give it a try.

Today, if your client were to seek advice from an IP adviser, the discussions necessary for them to determine the type of protection that the company wishes to obtain and how to craft their intellectual property rights—their patents, for example—may all be disclosed. If in a litigation there were an opportunity to assert those rights, they would come back in discovery and could potentially be used against your client. The client, therefore, is discouraged from being open and frank in their discussions with their IP advisers out of fear that that may come to bear. As well, your client may be less likely to wish to use their intellectual property rights in an assertive manner because of these defects.

With the changes to the legislation, when a client seeks that advice, those communications related to that advice will be protected as privileged, as would be any other conversations with respect to the legal advisers on legal questions. Therefore, the administration of justice would be better served in the sense that those full, free, and frank conversations can now occur without fear of their being disclosed, and your client will have better access to justice in that they won't fear that in asserting their rights, somehow their strategies and other confidential information needed in seeking that advice will be disclosed to their competitors.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

Mr. Côté, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Astle, the amendments made to the Industrial Design Act, the Patent Act and the Trade-Marks Act will never be examined by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. What do you think about that?

[Jeffrey Astle]

I'm not aware of everyone who was consulted in connection with these changes, but I do know that the associations; the law societies, the Federation of Law Societies, for example; the Canadian Bar Association; and others that have an interest in these were consulted and had an opportunity to provide input, as did we.

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

Were you consulted by Industry Canada?

[Jeffrey Astle]

We were, as were they, yes.

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

Very well.

I sat on the Standing Committee of Industry, Science and Technology for all of 2014. I was caught up in the process and buffoonery surrounding the parts of the omnibus bill that had been referred to this committee. These provisions made other amendments to certain acts concerning trademarks and other such things.

Monsieur Astle, according to the Canadian Bar Association, the fact of amending laws other than budgetary laws via an omnibus bill reduces the effectiveness of the democratic process and debate, and weakens the legislative power of the government.

I think that what the Canadian Bar Association said is very significant and of great moment. As a lawyer, what do you think ?

[Jeffrey Astle]

I have personally been in discussions with these associations—the law societies, the Federation of Law Societies, and the Canadian Bar Association—in my personal experience since as early as 2004. There's been a lot of debate and discussion and a number of opportunities for consultations where responses were provided, so I'm surprised at the suggestion that there has not been an opportunity to provide input.

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

We are not talking here about the consultation process, but about the legislative process itself, which includes the study of bills in committee. You would probably have been comfortable had we examined the amendments made to these three acts at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

[Jeffrey Astle]

Maybe I'm not understanding the question. I admit not knowing the entire process behind the development of legislation, but in my understanding, the concepts, which are relatively straightforward, have been discussed at length in the act. Consultations and opportunity to consult were provided at a number of intervals with respect to these types of changes, most recently in November 2013, when all those who were invited to submit had an opportunity to do so, as did we. What has been discussed and what we have been advocating is reflected in the legislation.

I'm not aware of further study. I suspect that the officials have worked with those who have an interest in this type of legislation and have given them an opportunity to provide input. I was not consulted, but I'm quite aware of the process that has led us to where we are today.

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

The Advocates' Society sent a letter to the Minister of Finance concerning the process. Here is an excerpt from that letter:

[...] further study is required given that some of Canada's professional associations and regulatory bodies [this is a reference to the issue of extending solicitor-client privilege], including the Law Societies in all of the provinces and territories, did not have an opportunity to provide their position or opinions on this issue.

Were you aware of these omissions?