Evidence of meeting #6 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

John Gordon  National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Chief Lucien Wabanonik  Grand Chief of the Anishnabeg Nation, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador
Gilbert Whiteduck  Chief, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador
Michèle Asselin  President, Fédération des femmes du Québec
François Roy  Representative, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain
Geoffrey Grenville-Wood  General Counsel, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Pierre Beauchamp  Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Real Estate Association
David Bradley  Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Trucking Alliance
Pierre Patry  Treasurer, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
Guy Chevrette  President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Forest Industry Council
David Paradis  President, Quebec Federation of University Students
Ian Boyko  Government Relations Coordinator, Canadian Federation of Students
Claire Morris  President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
Michel Vincent  Director, Economics and Markets, Quebec Forest Industry Council
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Jean-François Pagé

11:10 a.m.

President, Fédération des femmes du Québec

Michèle Asselin

You are absolutely right. Pay equity is a matter of fundamental justice for all Canadian and Quebec women. I cannot speak to the laws of Manitoba or Ontario, since I am not an expert. However, I can tell you that the proactive legislation on pay equity in Quebec, which we passed over 10 years ago, marked important progress for women. But despite the adoption of this proactive legislation in Quebec, we still need to help non-unionized women. If this bill which will restrict the rights of unionized women is adopted, just imagine what kind of message the government would be sending to other employers. It is high time to take up the fight against discrimination against women once more. However, the meaning within part 11 does the exact opposite.

I would invite you to look at the work done by the Task Force on pay equity. The task force did important, detailed and in-depth work, and conducted inquiries, and its recommendation is clear: we must adopt proactive pay equity legislation. Therefore, we certainty cannot support part 11 of this bill.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Merci.

The message--yes, legislation is needed, but it can be much improved--is a very strong one for the Conservative government.

I have an additional question for Mr. Grenville-Wood. In both cases you talked about the unconstitutionality, in your view, of these two additions. I just want it on the record, and you can confirm it, but it sounded as though you were saying pretty clearly to the current government that with the passage of this bill with these elements, including the pay equity one--and your material specifically also indicates that the view is that that too is unconstitutional--there will be constitutional challenges to both.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

You have about 30 seconds to answer, Mr. Grenville-Wood.

11:10 a.m.

General Counsel, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada

Geoffrey Grenville-Wood

Thank you, Ms. Hall Findlay.

Our position is that this legislation will attract litigation. I'm not saying that we will undertake litigation or that anyone else necessarily will, but I suspect it will attract litigation.

I suspect that litigation will go to the constitutionality of both provisions: pay equity, with respect to a breach of section 15, and the other with respect to a breach of section 2 dealing with the freedom of association.

Let me just add that neither of these pieces of legislation, in our view, is saved by section 1 of the charter. That is the escape clause, if you wish, which allows governments to act in a way that is consonant with “a free and democratic society”. I don't think these pieces of legislation would pass that test.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Thank you very much.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Monsieur Carrier.

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I find it unfortunate to hear what you are telling us, and the Bloc Québécois shares your views.

A little earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that we must focus on stimulating the economy and that it is urgent to adopt the implementation bill. However, the bill contains some elements which make it unacceptable. I denounce the support given by the Liberals to the government, which has included ideological reforms in a budget which should only be focused on economic stimulus.

As a member of Parliament, I am almost ashamed of talking to my constituents, whom I run into on a regular basis. These people need housing. The budget does nothing to increase worker eligibility to employment insurance. Less than 50% of workers receive employment insurance; the other half are not eligible because they have not worked enough hours. The government has chosen to extend the length of time people can receive EI benefits, but of those eligible, only 10% receive benefits for the entirety of that period. This measure is a failed attempt to help workers.

The problems are huge. The government has attacked pay equity, something which has been discussed at length. The stimulus plan also includes a measure regarding collective bargaining, and it amends the Competition Act. It even has a section on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In fact, the stimulus plan would see the act amended. We studied the bill at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and we did not get to the bottom of things. So now it has been included in the budget and we are being asked to quickly accept it. So you can understand why the Bloc Québécois did not support the budget.

I have a question for Mr. François Roy regarding social housing. It is an issue which deeply concerns me; there is a huge shortfall of public housing. Statistics show that Quebec alone needs 52,000 social housing units. You said that 800 units might be built under this budget. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which used to be in the social housing business, has a surplus of over $8 billion. We might ask ourselves what this surplus is good for. The Auditor General has said that a reserve or surplus of $2 billion is more than enough.

I would like to know what Mr. Roy thinks about the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's surplus, which could have been used in the stimulus plan to specifically help built new social housing.

11:15 a.m.

Representative, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain

François Roy

Indeed, the huge surplus could be used to help address the social housing shortfall in Canada and Quebec. According to FRAPRU, it does not matter where the money comes from, we have to invest more in community and social housing. For years now, we have been asking that investment in social housing be doubled. We would like to see $2 billion of new money per year invested in social housing. For us, that would be the minimum, because ever since the federal government pulled out of social housing in 1994, and even before that when Brian Mulroney's Conservatives were in government, it created a shortfall of 50,000 units in Quebec alone. If we had maintained the same level of investments since 1994, we would not have this current crisis. There would be 50,000 more social housing units in Quebec today.

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC

Thank you, Mr. Roy.

My question is for Mr. Grenville-Wood.

You said that the principles of collective bargaining would be eliminated under part 10 or 11 of the bill. I would like you to tell us a little more about the national and even international repercussions this might have.

11:20 a.m.

General Counsel, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada

Geoffrey Grenville-Wood

The International Labour Organization has adopted Convention No. 87, which deals with the collective bargaining of contracts between employers and employees. So this is already enshrined in international law. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that collective bargaining is part and parcel of international law. The Supreme Court interpreted paragraph 2(d) of the charter that way, since collective bargaining is enshrined in international law, because Canada is a signatory to the convention. So Canadian law has absorbed that principle of international law. For this reason, the Supreme Court amended decisions going back years which were counter to the interpretation applied to the case involving British Columbia's health care services.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Mr. Bernier, you have the floor.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC

I am very pleased to take part in this discussion today.

A lot of people are saying that our government should do more to stimulate the economy. People are talking about economic stimulus and how money will be spent to benefit specific lucky groups, including all of us and our children. However, they are the ones who will have to pay back the cost of the stimulus package. As you know, the Government of Canada is taking on debt to stimulate the economy. We are doing this by using a balanced approach which takes into account the short-term need to stimulate the economy, that is, to help groups in need, and the long-term impact this debt will have on all of society. The long-term impact will translate into additional taxes which all Canadians might have to pay in the future.

Mr. Roy, I was pleased to hear you say that our plan will create an additional 850 social housing units in Canada. As you know, social housing is a shared jurisdiction between the federal government and the provinces. So the budget includes money for social housing, but we cannot forget that the federal government has done much for Quebec since it was elected. Federal transfers to Quebec increased by over 37%. In 2009-2010 alone, Quebec will receive $17 billion from the federal government. Since our election, equalization programs transfers have increased by 70%. This year alone, that represents $8.3 billion. It is an area of shared jurisdiction. We have done our part, and the provinces are free to choose whether to also invest in social housing.

My question is for Mr. Roy.

You said a little earlier that the Canadian debt should be increased by $2 billion to help solve the social housing problem in Canada. Did I understand you correctly?

11:20 a.m.

Representative, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain

François Roy

In our opinion, it's not an expenditure but rather an investment to foster economic and social development. Investing in social housing, particularly during a crisis such as this, enables significantly more jobs to be created while resolving major problems such as poverty.

The federal government played a very significant role in the development of social housing after the Second World War. There was the creation, among other things of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As I mentioned earlier, Brian Mulroney's Conservative government unfortunately withdrew from this in 1994, and that decision had major impacts on Canadians, particularly low-income households.

As was mentioned, the most recent budget includes investments to allow the creation of nearly 800 units in Quebec, but this is very little. In the Saint-Georges de Beauce region alone, 1,700 households spend more than 30% of their income on housing. The vacancy rate is 0.6%, although experts agree that a balanced rate would be approximately 3%. One small municipality in Quebec shows us what is happening throughout the province. Yet, the budget will only allow us to build 800 units throughout Quebec. In our opinion, this is not an expenditure but rather an investment.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Conservative Beauce, QC

I was pleased to note, as you said earlier, that this is an area of shared jurisdiction. You incessantly say that the various orders of government should invest more in social housing. I think that it's a good thing to do. As I mentioned, difficult choices had to be made with regard to the budget, and we made one. In passing, Quebec has the means, thanks to the equalization formula, to invest in social housing. I hope that the governments of the other provinces will follow suit as you have done.

11:25 a.m.

Representative, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain

François Roy

If I may, Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has indicated that social housing is a shared responsibility, but that the federal government should play a major role in terms of the housing crisis. We recognize that the Government of Quebec plays a role, but so do the Government of Canada and the municipalities. The majority of the spending power is situated at the federal level.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Merci.

Mr. McKay.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

I am going to direct my question to Mr. Beauchamp.

Mr. Beauchamp, as obnoxious as it may be on the part of the government to throw all of these other things into the budget bill, you'd have to agree that the Competition Act has been in need of a fix for quite a while. Certainly criminally it is very difficult to obtain a conviction. You not only have to prove conspiracy but also have to prove that somehow or another it created damages. Consequently, there have been virtually no convictions under the current legislation.

The government is proposing that you don't so much have to prove the damages any more. I certainly fail to see how your body is really going to be affected under the criminal provisions. I can see how you may be more concerned with regard to the civil proceedings. Surely there is an argument to be made that consumers should be able to access real estate services on a competitive basis without there being some sort of backdoor agreement among brokers as to how much will be charged in a particular region for commissions.

11:25 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Real Estate Association

Pierre Beauchamp

Thank you for the question, Mr. McKay.

Basically, we are very concerned that small business in Canada is targeted by this particular proposed change. The undueness element exists at the moment. I think it is powerful, in that before things can happen here you have to be able to demonstrate that there has been an abuse, that market power has been attempted, or at least thought of. In this case, when you're talking about people just trying to come up with good, solid competition—which is the purpose of the Competition Act, by the way—and you see them targeted in this particular situation when basically they are just trying to do a good job.... They can still be captured if it's proven, under the present law, that there is undue lessening of competition. There is absolutely nothing wrong with those particular conditions as they exist today.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

That has become virtually impossible to prove, hasn't it?

11:25 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Real Estate Association

Pierre Beauchamp

Certainly in real estate if two real estate brokerages have controlling interest in a particular area, I think that would be fairly easy to demonstrate, as a matter of fact. Obviously it requires research.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

It's fairly easy to demonstrate the fact that there is an agreement among brokers in a given region. What is difficult to prove, though, is the damage, or that competition has been reduced as a result of that agreement.

11:30 a.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Real Estate Association

Pierre Beauchamp

That may be, but the contention we have for the government to establish that is that the tools are there today. As of now we are concerned, because we're talking about small-business people, and there have not have been any major attempts. We have worked very closely with the Competition Bureau. We have a good dialogue with the bureau on a number of topics, and that one in particular has not been the focus of their effort.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Yes, it may be an inelegant solution. I don't disagree with you on that point, and this is, if you will, a hazard of throwing an extraneous piece of legislation into a budget bill.

Thank you.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

I thank all the witnesses for your presentations and your responses here today.

Members, we will suspend for a couple of minutes and have the next group of witnesses come to the table.

Thank you.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

We have with us six organizations for our second panel: the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Québec Forest Industry Council, the Quebec Federation of University Students, the Canadian Federation of Students, and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

If we could proceed in that order for each of your five-minute presentations, we'll then go to questions from members.

Thank you all for coming in on very short notice.

We will start with Mr. Bradley, please.