Evidence of meeting #9 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transport.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 p.m.
President, Association of Justice Counsel
And you've gone on to have a very nice career.
9:30 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
That's right. Back when I was Quebec's Environment Minister, we had a difficult time holding on to good employees in Gatineau, because members of our profession were paid more handsomely by the federal government. This represented a major problem in terms of enforcement of environmental laws in the Gatineau sector of Quebec. We were unable to hold on to our employees. So then, we shouldn't be surprised to see the Conservative tell you that you are spoiled because you can't be laid off.
9:30 p.m.
President, Association of Justice Counsel
If things continue, there won't be anyone left to lay off.
9:30 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
We're in luck this evening, Mr. Poirier. A question has been put to you by Mr. McKay of the Liberal Party of Canada, this grand party that once held the reigns of government and that even has the word “liberal“ in its name. He informed us that the party is prepared to vote in favour of amendments to help your union. The same goes for you, Mr. Jetté.
I suggest that you follow the lead of Anu Bose and Michael Janigan, both of whom made some for specific suggestions about how consumers could be protected. Please let us know as soon as possible which particular clauses you would like to see amended. Now that I know that “Lightning“ McCallum and Mr. McKay plan to support these changes, as we plan to do as well, then the problem will be resolved. I did hear him say this earlier:
that it's a “sledgehammer” and “you have a very legitimate dispute”.
I have a hard time believing that someone who claims to be a liberal and to be ready to fight for people's freedoms can say that you have “a very legitimate dispute“ and then not vote in favour of your amendments that we are going to put forward tomorrow during the clause by clause study phase of this important legislation, Bill C-10.
I would urge you to take a look at these amendments as quickly as possible, to be here tomorrow or to send someone in your place, or to send us your own amendments immediately. With the support of the Bloc and the Liberals, under the aegis of the reckless “Captain Flash”, we can settle this in a flash, Mr. Chair.
9:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees
The amendments that we would like to see are included verbatim in our submission. A word of caution is in order, however. All this does is open the door to some negotiation, and we have seen that this can work. It would be a balanced approach involving both parties, given economic conditions, but at least it would involve some negotiation.
9:35 p.m.
President, Association of Justice Counsel
We have also proposed specific changes in our submission. Moreover, the Public Service Labour Relations Board is a bargaining mechanism that ensures that pay increases are evaluated on the basis of the government's ability to pay. If negotiation was an option, that would be good. Arbitration, the ultimate step, follows the negotiation process. If we could go to arbitration, we could achieve our objectives and exercise our rights which are fully and fairly protected.
9:35 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Precisely.
Mrs. Bose, could you put clause 70 something in writing? I've checked and we don't have anything. Your submission was extremely clear—as was yours, Mr. Janigan—but we would like to have something in writing so we can follow up tomorrow.
9:35 p.m.
Head, Ottawa Office, Option consommateurs
We will get that to you tomorrow morning.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.
We'll go now to Mr. Pacetti, please, for five minutes.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses for taking the time to come and make their submissions to the committee.
I have a question for Mr. Poirier. You brought up the subject of pay and classification conversion. Your association is comprised of several groups, namely economists, translators, interpreters and terminologists. I'm fairly certain that they do not all earn the same salary.
Can you give me an example of what this means to you, in monetary terms?
9:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees
The reality is that we have a range of pay scales. Economists just starting out in their career are not paid the same as economists at the top of their pay range, which can be anywhere up to $100,000. That's how the process works. Together, the parties examine the value of the work.
9:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees
The parties would be the employer, who is represented by Treasury Board, and the bargaining agent. Together, they look at whether the salary scale is equivalent and proportional to the value of the work performed. In some cases, the pay scale may be adjusted downward, while in others, it might remain the same. This is all part of the conversion process. The government has just...
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
9:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees
This affects about 10,000 employees, most of whom are economists and sociologists.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
9:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees
The TR group is comprised of between 1,000 and 1,100 translators, terminologists and interpreters. There are 90 Library of Parliament analysts.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Once you have agreed on a base, is there a pay scale that applies to that base?
9:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees
Currently, there are seven different pay scales. In fact, there are eight pay scales in the collective agreement, but in reality, only seven are used. Each pay scale includes different pay levels. And here is where an objective, not subjective, re-evaluation is required.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
In percentage terms, what does this represent? An increase of 5%, or a reduction of 3%?
9:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees
The outcome could be neutral. There may be no pay increase at all. Part of the process involves an evaluation, the other, some negotiation.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
There's plenty of time. There's 20 minutes.
Merci, monsieur Poirier.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
You have two minutes, Mr. McCallum. You have to move at lightning speed.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Okay.
Just to clarify with Mr. Mulcair, I'll remind him of what I've said about three times today, which is that much as there are many things in this budget we do not like, the overriding priority is to deal with the economic crisis and to get the money out the door. I think I've said that frequently.
My question is for Madame Bose and Mr. Janigan.
You obviously like the content of the competition changes, but many do not. For me it's at least as much a question of process. We have a hugely complex set of changes to the Competition Act rammed through in the proposed budget act in such a way that there's no time for debate. I suspect on our side there is much we would like in it, but it is so complex--it is change of a nature that occurs approximately only every 20 years--that there may be some elements in there that will have unintended consequences. So I cannot understand why you could approve of the process, and why you would not prefer to see this as a stand-alone bill to have the scrutiny that it deserves. Or am I wrong on that point?