Finance Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2009

[Michael Janigan]

Yes, Mr. McCallum, there are some comprehensive changes particularly to the powers that are enjoyed by the competition commissioner and the competition tribunal. Most of these have been discussed and discussed and discussed over the years, particularly in relation to things like administrative monetary penalties and expanding the ability of the competition commissioner to seek administrative remedies.

We look upon it as, rather than effectively changing the substance of the act, changing the tool kit and the ability of the competition commissioner to deal with the act. Yes, some have expressed concerns that we don't really know what the competition commissioner is going to do with this new tool kit, but effectively those are the same kinds of concerns that come about whenever you pass a new law. You don't necessarily know how a judge is going to interpret it. You don't necessarily know how a tribunal is going to administer it.

I think we have some ability to trust in the enforcement of competition law in Canada, and trust in the discretion of the competition commissioner to exercise the powers wisely, and I say let's give them the powers to deal with competition in this economy in a 21st century manner, not something that will saddle them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Janigan.

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

Monsieur Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the committee's final meeting of the day.

I have a question for Mr. Laliberté who represents the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec. How many individuals or employees do you represent?

[Pierre Laliberté]

Our federation represents 450,000 workers.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

I see from the name of your organization that all workers, male and female, are equal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did not talk about the issue of pay equity which is addressed in the budget implementation legislation. According to this bill, pay equity will henceforth be part of the negotiating process. Mr. Olsen mentioned a little while ago that he is in favour of having pay equity negotiated. I have always believed in equal pay for work of equal value, believed that this was a right. How do you negotiate a right? I'd be interested in knowing what you think about this issue, since it concerns you directly.

[Pierre Laliberté]

As far as we are concerned, the issue of pay equity transcends the collective bargaining process. This is something that cannot be negotiated. We are talking here about a long-standing practice of employment discrimination that goes back decades. Women were declared persons under the law 80 years ago. In the labour market, some jobs continue to be viewed as either male or female bastions. There are structural causes of discrimination in the workplace that cannot be addressed within the context of bargaining. Some jobs are unique to a specific working environment. Therefore, comparisons must be drawn with other jobs and analyses must be done.

For us, it's like mixing apples and oranges. Again, I want to take this opportunity to urge the government to separate these issues. If it refuses to do that, then I beg the Liberals to put their principles before their political interests and vote against this budget, because principles and fundamental rights are at issue. We can't understand why they don't see that. As we see it, this issue is not something that can be negotiated. We can always debate whether or not some program or another merits more funding, but this is a very serious issue, to our way of thinking.

Earlier, your colleague threw me a line. Had you asked me if Quebec came out on the losing end of this budget, I would have answered yes, absolutely, because of equalization, first of all. We cannot comprehend in the least how the Canadian government, which is spending the equivalent of $18 billion by cutting taxes, cannot afford to pay the $2 billion already committed under a five-year agreement, at a time when all provinces that are under performing are facing very significant fiscal pressure. As far as we are concerned, this is a fundamental problem.

Moving away from the budget, I would like to draw your attention to the proposal to establish a national securities commission. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The system in place right now works. If the objective is to shift activities to Toronto, fine then, but if the goal is to have a system that works, then we really have no need of a national securities commission.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have time for one last question, Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

How do you feel about the backward step that has been taken, namely the decision to include pay equity in the collective bargaining process, instead of viewing it as a right, as it currently the case? How could a Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, backtrack on this decision? The Liberals have said they will support many proposals because the budget needs to pass to ensure an economic turnaround. Could they reverse their position and admit that pay equity is now a right?

[Pierre Laliberté]

I will wager that our Conservative and Liberal friends will see the light and acknowledge that this is a matter of principle that warrants...

There you have it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

We'll go to Mr. Dechert for five minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to direct my question to Mr. Olsen. It seems to me that truly equitable compensation can really only occur when all parties are working together. It appears to me that the current approach is rooted in an adversarial system, and in my opinion, it's time to change that system.

As many know, I was a lawyer in private practice for 25 years before being elected to government. Although I didn't practise in the area of labour and employment law, I certainly had many partners who did. I suppose I benefited indirectly from their many great efforts and long efforts on behalf of some of their clients over the years.

I wonder if you could comment on some of the court cases that have occurred in the past, and specifically on how long they have lasted, how much money has been spent on lawyers and such other fees--and I hope my former partners aren't watching this evening.

[David Olsen]

Let me talk about one that I am most familiar with, and that is the litigation between the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Canada Post Corporation. The Public Service Alliance of Canada filed a complaint in 1983 that the white-collar clerical employees they represented did work of equal value to the blue-collar postal clerks who worked in our postal plants—and by the way, they were gender-neutral. So we had a female-predominant group, white collar. We had a gender-neutral group in our plants, 50-50 men and women, of about 20,000 employees, and then, to make sure that the group was predominantly male, they added the letter carriers, who were in a different union at the time.

In any event, that case was in investigation for 13 years. It was finally referred to the tribunal in about 1995. It lasted 10 years before the tribunal. It was then reviewed by the Federal Court trial division.

Canada Post contended it had not discriminated by paying unequal wages for work of equal value. The tribunal found the evidence to be very deficient, after 10 years of litigation, but nevertheless awarded, but said that because the evidence was so bad they would only award 50% of the amount claimed. The Federal Court trial division, where it currently sits, reviewed the case, determined that the case had not been proved before the tribunal, and sent it back to the tribunal to dismiss the file.

Interestingly enough, I thought I might get some questions about it, but I'll tell you what Mr. Justice Kelen of the Federal Court trial division said about the lengthy litigation process and how that was a terrible way to resolve these kinds of disputes. I have to say that this case is now under appeal again and will likely be heard in the Federal Court of Appeal in the fall of this year.

As it stands, until this decision is set aside, Mr. Justice Kelen of the Federal Court trial division has ruled that the complaint had not been proved, that the evidence was not satisfactory, and he had this to say about the process:

Within the first year of the hearing before the Tribunal, the evidence upon which the PSAC complaint was referred by the Commission to the Tribunal was found deficient and of no value.

--this is at the end of the first year of hearing--

At that point, all the parties and the Tribunal recognized that the evidence did not substantiate the complaint. The Tribunal has the legal duty, if it finds that the complaint to which the inquiry relates has not been substantiated, to dismiss the complaint under subsection 53(1) of the CHRA.

However, in this case the Tribunal allowed PSAC to retain new experts to marshal new evidence in an attempt to substantiate the complaint. Marshalling of the evidence took place over several years, and each time the evidence was found to be deficient...

The hearing was then adjourned or ended to allow the alliance to repair or buttress the deficient evidence.

He says:

In my view, the Tribunal breached its duty under section 53 of the CHRA, and breached the duty to provide parties with a fair hearing. A fair hearing is not a continuing process. A fair hearing is one where a party knows the case against it and has an opportunity of addressing that case within a reasonable time. At that point, the Tribunal has a duty to adjudicate upon the case.

He concludes that the case had not been proved at the tribunal and sent it back to be dismissed.

Now, what I have to say is—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Olsen, I'm sorry, but Mr. Dechert's time is up.

[David Olsen]

Could I just clarify one point?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'll just ask you to wrap up.

[David Olsen]

This case that is still outstanding after 25 years deals with the past situation. I will tell you that the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Canada Post sat down in 2002 and resolved all issues concerning equal pay for work of equal value in collective bargaining. And—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Olsen, I'm sorry to break that up.

[David Olsen]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll finish with Mr. McKay, please.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Laliberté, I want to ask you a question about employment insurance.

You made several points about access to the program. You thought that access should be improved. The government has probably done the least amount possible, namely stacking five hours on the end of the program, shrinking the two-week period down to zero, those sorts of things. All of that costs significant sums of money. The other thing the government did was freeze the premiums for the year and they called that a stimulus, which the parliamentary budget officer took exception to, stating that it really wasn't a stimulus.

But given that, the premiums will inevitably rise next year. More accurately, the cost will inevitably rise next year because of the huge influx of people who will be unemployed. Is it your view that the cost of the program should be taken out of general revenues, or should it be taken out of premium revenue?

[Pierre Laliberté]

To answer your question, we've always thought the system as a whole would be best managed by employers, unions, and government together—with enough money to go around, in other words. This is a model we have for a number of organizations in Quebec, for instance, and it works relatively well and helps to create consensus over policies.

In the current context, it would have to come from general revenues. In the context that we are dealing with right now, it would be fiction to think that we could pay for the benefits that would be given out of the premiums that are being paid. You know that.

For the time being, what was supposed to hold under the new fiducie.... I don't know how you say it in English.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Agency.

[Pierre Laliberté]

Agency, yes. Well, it doesn't hold water anymore.

We're disappointed that the $4 billion went to premiums rather than to benefits, because that's essentially what it would have cost to have what we proposed in terms of allowing everyone in Canada to qualify equally with the same number of hours, something that would benefit people in Alberta just as well as people in Nova Scotia, to have 60% of the insurable salary.

The average benefit right now is $330. People who are used to making better salaries will have to rely on this.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Right now it's also about a $17 billion program. And so your advice to the government would be that when the costs inevitably go up, those costs should be taken from the general revenues rather than from premium revenue. And you're saying that as a temporary...but temporary around here becomes very permanent very quickly. So effectively, what you're saying is that premium revenue is frozen.

[Pierre Laliberté]

I'm trying to say a few things here.

I think that premiums should not have been frozen, indeed. And the benefits should have been improved. A number of groups in Quebec, all the union federations included, essentially proposed that changes be made for two or three years, with a sunset clause to weather the storm while it happens and not lock in future governments. Even if we wanted those improvements to be permanent, it was just to essentially put the government at ease with it. That suggestion was not entertained.