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

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

Monsieur Laforest.

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to make a general opening statement. I want to thank all the people who have come here as witnesses before our committee.

Just now, I heard my colleague Mr. McCallum say that we are in a full-blown recession. We also understand that, but I do not believe that this was reason enough to include in the budget measures that violate the rights of workers and of women. The budget could have been used to propose measures that would have truly fostered social housing and building new housing units on aboriginal reserves. That would also stimulate the economy. Really, further measures would definitely have been needed to further all of our aims.

First, I would like to put a question to Ms. Asselin. Members of the Bloc Québécois stood up in the House and decried the part of the 2009 Budget Implementation Act that violates the principle of pay equity. Conservative members often answered by saying that the new legislation that they wanted to see introduced at the federal level was similar to existing legislation in Quebec.

You mentioned the Pay Equity Act in Quebec and you said that it was proactive legislation. I would like you to give us further details about it. What are the differences between the bill that is currently on the table and the existing Quebec legislation? I do not think that they are similar.

10:45 a.m.

President, Fédération des femmes du Québec

Michèle Asselin

They are completely different. In Quebec, the Loi sur l'équité salariale is supported by the Commission sur l'équité salariale. After having gone through procedures as prescribed by the legislation—I will spare you all the technical terms—if working women are not satisfied with the decision, they can complain before the commission, which is actually a labour tribunal administered by the Commission sur l'équité salariale.

That is totally different from what is proposed in part 11, which will deprive women working in the Canadian public service of their rights to take their case to court. This is imposed in the negotiation. It is entirely different from the Loi sur l'équité salariale, which is proactive legislation that also obliges the employer to provide equal pay to working women. If they are not satisfied, they can resort to a procedure governed by the Commission sur l'équité salariale to lodge their complaints.

We cannot, in good faith, say that what is proposed here is the same as what is being applied in Quebec. It is very different.

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Thank you, Ms. Asselin.

My next question is for Mr. François Roy. You gave comparisons involving the income of tenants in Quebec. Of course, this has to do with housing, but it also has to do with the living conditions of tenants as a whole. This not only involves housing, but it also has to do with access to a more decent income.

Could you tell us if this affects every region in Quebec?

10:50 a.m.

Representative, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain

François Roy

Indeed, it applies to every region in Quebec. The CMHC and the Société d'habitation du Québec consider that low-income households are in urgent need of social housing when they have to spend more than 30% of their income on housing.

Let us look at the results of the 2006 census. In Quebec, 87,000 households were spending more than 80% of their income on housing. It goes without saying that these households do not have enough money to buy sufficient food, to educate their children correctly or to pay for health care. This has a major impact on the standard of living of citizens in general.

In Quebec as a whole, 448,000 households spend more than the standard 30% of their income on housing. Along with that, the major centres, the towns and villages in Quebec are currently going through an unprecedented housing crisis. There is a shortage of rental housing in almost every municipality in Quebec.

We believe that it is important to invest more in building social housing units. We think that the federal government could make greater efforts, so as to give economic development a strong stimulus. Building social housing creates jobs, and moreover, it has an impact on the social development of our communities.

10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

We know that the Conservative members held pre-budget consultation amongst themselves behind closed doors. Were you invited to present your requests to them?

10:50 a.m.

Representative, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain

François Roy

The FRAPRU regularly makes representations in order to present our demands. Once again, the content of the current budget is much less than what we are asking for. In our opinion, investment in social housing in Canada should be doubled so as to meet the needs.

The problem of homelessness is beyond tragic. A few years ago, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities declared that the situation was a national catastrophe, and that is also our reading of the current state of affairs. The government has not even indexed the funding for the HPI since it was implemented under the Liberal government. At the time, it was called the SCPI. The current investment levels only allow us to build an additional 850 units in Quebec. In light of the needs, this is clearly not enough.

10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Thank you, Mr. Roy.

I have a question for Mr. Wabanonik. You spoke of the educational needs of the first nations. You said that there is a budget of $268 million over five years for all the first nations' schools, but you said that they have to meet specific criteria. Basically, we are talking about targeted measures.

Could you give us one or two examples of this problem?

10:50 a.m.

Grand Chief of the Anishnabeg Nation, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador

Grand Chief Lucien Wabanonik

Thank you for your question.

We do not have any tools or mechanisms to help children who are having trouble adjusting to school. That's one specific example. We do not have enough libraries or other facilities. In many of our schools, there is no space to set up a library, even though a library is essential for education.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Merci.

Mr. Menzies, please.

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our presenters here today. I know it was short notice for many of you, and we do appreciate your coming.

We respect all of the comments that are made here today. Even though many of them tend to be criticisms, we'll take those criticisms as constructive, as we always do.

I must also acknowledge our colleagues on the other side, who have recognized that this is a very serious situation Canada finds itself in--and through no fault of any Canadian, I would suggest. We're at the whim of what has happened throughout the world. It has placed all of us in a very difficult position. The government finds itself in a very difficult position in dealing with that and trying to deal with that in the fairest way to all Canadians.

Your comments here today are well accepted as constructive criticism, but we need to remember that many Canadians won't have a job at the end of this year. To suggest that your bargaining rights are not as strong as they were last year doesn't carry a lot of water with somebody who doesn't have a job. We respect that. We respect the role that leadership in this country, whether it's union or government, has to play in doing the best you can for those you represent. Please believe me when I say that's what we're doing: we're trying to recognize the difficulty all Canadians are in, and trying to be sympathetic and empathetic to that role.

All of the pieces of this budget actually fit together to be able to very quickly roll out infrastructure spending accountably, to inject financial stimulus where we can through the lending institutions to create a financial sector that continues to be strong, to be able to fund growth in this economy.

It's very important that we remember that. The opposition has recognized that, and we appreciate that. We seem to be moving quickly, and we are, to make sure that we get this money rolled out. There's $6 billion tied up in this Budget Implementation Act, which we need to protect jobs. There's a five-week extension to employment insurance. People are calling our offices every day and asking when they can get their extension and when they can get their employment insurance. We ask that you recognize that we are in unprecedented waters as we move forward.

We did provide the broadest consultation process. Some of my colleagues here in Ottawa invited many people. There was no in camera session, by the way; it was a wide-open session for those who wanted to come. There were public consultations across the country. Union groups, farmers, and fishermen were invited to this consultation process. There was an online process where all people were able to provide input. We certainly hope that you all availed yourselves of that opportunity.

Now to my question, Mr. Chair, if I may.

I'm very troubled with the comments to do with aboriginal Canadians and the Quebec Assembly of First Nations. I agree with you: I've heard this 2% factor in education, and I would sincerely love to talk with you at some point about that. I've heard that from my first nations too. Perhaps that's something we need to look at, going forward.

You mentioned something about skills training. We've put $100 million aside for aboriginal skills training and employment partnership and $75 million over two years for aboriginal skills training and investment fund. That's a substantial investment. What can we do better to make sure that this actually gets to young aboriginals?

10:55 a.m.

Grand Chief of the Anishnabeg Nation, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador

Grand Chief Lucien Wabanonik

Thank you for that question.

Perhaps the first thing to do would be to remove the 2% limit. It has been in place for 20 years, and in no way helps us catch up.

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

That's pertaining to the education part of it. On the skills and employment partnership, have you looked at ways on your reserves that you could implement this? Do you have the physical training facilities, or are we looking at construction of new facilities to provide this training?

11 a.m.

Chief, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador

Chief Gilbert Whiteduck

It depends on the community. A lot of communities are prepared to offer training courses in partnership with colleges and with the Ministry of Education. Those are ready to go. But the funding has to flow and it has to flow very quickly.

We recognize that there's been some effort made. We need to recognize that that's a fact--except the reality of day to day, whether it be housing, water, or education, is that there is so much catching up to do that it's frustrating and upsetting at the community level. That's the problem we're meeting. Now we're hearing the budget announcement and we still don't have any clue of when it's coming, how we should be preparing. As the chief of a community, none of that has been told to us. So we are in limbo. We are ready to move, ready to have concrete action that will stimulate our own community economy and will stimulate the economy around our communities. When money flows to our communities, the local municipalities gain from that because we're spending our money in those municipalities, so everyone wins.

Let's get the money flowing and get things done now as we look at other issues like education, which, I would put to all of you here, is the key to pulling us out of poverty. We need to make a significant difference in the areas of education and training and we need to do it very quickly.

11 a.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

I couldn't agree more.

11 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

We'll go to Mr. Mulcair.

11 a.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now it's my turn to congratulate and thank the people who have come to give testimony today and who have shed light on a number of topics. We don't have a lot of time, so I am going to focus on just one of these topics. The Conservatives, with the shameful complicity of the Liberals, are preparing to take rights away from Canadian women. They will not be able to turn to the courts to ensure that their human rights are respected, in particular the right to equal pay for work of equal value.

In this regard, I would like to thank Ms. Asselin for clarifying one point. I had to withdraw my remarks in the House after I called the president of the Treasury Board a liar. He had stated that what he was proposing was the same as was being done in Quebec. I realized that because of the rules of Parliament, I had to retract my remarks, but it was not because I was wrong. Thank you for that clarification.

I would also like to thank Mr. Gordon for telling us the truth in such a lively manner. Today's Hill Times contains some of his remarks. I would also like to focus on the legal presentation. I am also a lawyer, Mr. Grenville-Wood, but I must admit to you that I rarely heard such a complex matter. I myself practised labour law for many years, but I must say that you have really succeeded in getting to the heart of the matter and sharing it with the committee members. I sincerely thank you for that.

Today, Mr. Chair, The Hill Times teaches us that this bill is about to go through your committee at “lightning speed”. Now, that particular quote about “lightning speed” comes from Mr. McCallum. Having had the occasion to work with Mr. McCallum over the years, I've noticed that he doesn't do anything at lightning speed--

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

11 a.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

--but “Lightning McCallum” has decided that this bill has to go through the committee very quickly.

I guess the reason is the following: the Liberals, who still have the name even though they don't have the principles, are going to allow this bill to go through this committee despite the fact that it removes a human right from Canadian women to have equal pay for work of equal value.

There was a time--in fact, it was November 27, 2008--when the Liberals believed this was such an important issue that they were ready to topple the government. They had a Liberal leader at that time. Two months later, the exact same provision is in this bill, and now they're pleading; they're saying that because of the economic downturn they have to go against women's rights. What a scandal.

That, coming from the Conservatives, is an ideological standpoint and doesn't surprise us, but it is properly scandalous to hear the party of Pierre Trudeau, the party of the Charter of Rights, come before this committee today and plead in favour of the removal of human rights from Canadian women, saying that it's because of the economic downturn.

The two are unrelated. There's not a single penny involved in this bill. There's no spending involved. The government has admitted that it won't save any money. They're simply withdrawing from women the right to have equal pay for work of equal value.

The bill goes further, and this is a point well worth looking at. It now sets the bar at 70%, across the board, for the triggering mechanism to determine when this can be looked at. The problem is that Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick have set it at 60% over the years, so the government is essentially, through the back door, eliminating any possibility to even trigger the weak mechanism that's there. And with the complicity, the shameful complicity, of the Liberals, this bill is going to get through.

The only thing that Lightning McCallum and his team are worried about is getting this bill through as fast as possible so they don't have to wear the shame of backing the Conservatives in taking away women's rights, taking away workers' rights, taking away native rights, and taking away all of the things they claim to represent and speak for in this country but simply don't believe in.

You know why, Mr. Chair? Because they don't believe in anything. They are the most unprincipled group ever to have sat in this Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Ms. Asselin to tell us if in her opinion, there is some kind of financial motivation behind this proposal from the Conservatives, with the complicity of the Liberals, or is it more of an ideological attack?

11:05 a.m.

President, Fédération des femmes du Québec

Michèle Asselin

I would say that it's both. First of all, the government says that we need a budget that allows for quick action and job creation. However, when they create jobs by way of infrastructure programs—which can be a good strategy—for the most part, the jobs are for men. You may say that both women and men are experiencing the crisis the same way, and that even jobs for men were lost. Except that in the case of women, we started off further back.

The decision to refuse to pass proactive legislation on pay equity is an ideological one. Particularly since all the figures show that women earned less before the crisis and even less during the crisis. We are still earning 70% of what men are earning, despite the fact that we women are better and better educated. And the situation is even worse if you are an immigrant woman or an aboriginal woman.

What are words worth when one is making a commitment to fight discrimination? The government must roll up its shirtsleeves very quickly and bring in budgets that have real measures to stop discrimination against women. Within the context of the current crisis, if the government ignores the status of women instead of moving towards equality, women will see no progress, or at the worst, they will lose ground. That is where ideology comes into play. Why is the government fighting pay equity? That is a good question. In our opinion, this is a totally unjustifiable step backwards, particularly since Canada—and even Mr. Harper—reiterated its commitment to respect the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

I realize that there is an economic crisis on the way and that funding must flow quickly, but the government has to realize that discrimination against women does exist in Canada. If the government does not take that into account, the status of women will deteriorate.

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Thank you very much, Ms. Asselin.

In closing, on the very specific point of the economy or the lack of money, we are after all dealing with legislation to implement a budget. Mr. Flaherty tells us that the aim of the budget is not to allow the government to save money. So, once again that brings us to the issue of why this matter is included in a bill to implement the budget. Isn't clear that with a threshold of 70%—that is to say, 70% of the members of an occupational group would have to be women—the government is just trying to make sure that never again there will be any ruling in favour of women in cases of discrimination based on gender. In other words, a woman would never be able to get equal pay for work of equal value.

11:05 a.m.

President, Fédération des femmes du Québec

Michèle Asselin

It is totally unjustifiable, since all the figures show that systemic discrimination against women does exist. It is high time that women see some progress made. So, we need proactive legislation. But part 11 in its current form certainly will not bring about progress. Women will lose ground. The government is sending a very clear message to all other employers that the days of pay equity in Canada are over. So the government absolutely must change its approach.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Merci, Madame.

We'll go to Ms. Hall Findlay, please.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Thank you.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for your time this morning. I would like to say that my comments are in the context of the comments of my colleague, John McCallum, that there are many parts of this budget that we as Liberals do not support, that we do not like, but there is an overwhelming need in this country to deal with the economic challenge. We do understand the need to get money out, particularly to those in need, as soon as possible.

I will also make the comment to my other colleague, Mr. Menzies, that the effort to get money out to those who need it quickly does not necessarily need to have pay equity legislation, navigable waters legislation, and various other aspects in this budget bill that are not necessarily budget items.

In those two contexts, however, in understanding that the pay equity legislation proposal is flawed, I would like to do what we can to be constructive. Pay equity is an issue for both unionized and non-unionized women. I appreciate very much the input from the unionized sector this morning, but I also want to make sure that it's clear that it affects non-unionized women. So my question is to Madame Asselin. Acknowledging, if you will, that there is a need for legislation--and you can disagree with me--do you support the concept that the human rights commission approach has not been perfect, that there is a need for firm legislation at the federal level? If you do, do you support the examples we have seen so far in Quebec, as you talked about, in Manitoba, and in Ontario? I ask that in an effort to add input to the Conservative government to possible ways that they can improve what they're proposing.