Finance Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2009

[Patrick Jetté]

We have the right to negotiate, and that right is protected by the charter. So anything other than negotiations would be less than what the Charter of Rights gives us.

What we are looking for is exactly that, the exemption, just like the border agents got. They got an exemption also for the deal they had negotiated three days before the economic update was tabled.

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

Did they get an exemption or did they just get lucky?

[Patrick Jetté]

No. I doubt they got lucky, because it's clear in the act. And it's clear in the act that the AJC and our members are being targeted.

We are the only ones with the year 2006-07 on the radar screen. No one else is like that in the federal government. So why target the AJC? Its 2,500 members are specifically targeted because of that disposition.

Besides being targeted, the year 2006-07 was not in the economic update filed back in 2008. It was not even in the budget that was filed in January, but all of a sudden it appears in Bill C-10. So we can ask questions about that, about the AJC and our members being targeted unfairly by that legislation.

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

Okay. Thank you.

This question is to Ms. Bose and Mr. Janigan.

We had representations earlier in the day from Mr. Beauchamp of the Canadian Real Estate Association. His argument was that removing the undue lessening of competition requirement would require that the resulting provisions be overly broad. Without the qualification of “undue”, a very wide range of agreements would fall within the scope of the offence. His point was that he liked the legislation the way it currently is; that it is almost impossible to prove undue restriction in competition, leave it as it is. If you change it, then you'll catch a whole bunch of unintended consequences.

What's your response to Mr. Beauchamp's position?

[Michael Janigan]

I think, first of all, the bureau has to be commended for listening to the effective consensus associated with this, that in fact what we really need is a division of matters into per se offences, which are prosecutable by criminal law and basically represent clear attempts to try to frustrate the Competition Act, and the civil side of things, which look to the anti-competitive effect of the actions and treat it as a civil matter and treat it as an economic matter and attempt to allocate it in accordance with general economic principles.

I think the consensus previous to this has been that the provisions of the act were almost unenforceable because of the presence of the “undue” section. And I think while it might be fair that some industry players may have preferred the old section of the act, primarily because it was toothless, there are undoubtedly players within the business community—people who are prepared to invest, people who are prepared to set up businesses, people who are prepared to do things—who will be very pleased by this kind of action, because it will prevent incumbents from acting in a way that frustrates their attempts to deal with it.

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

He seems to be concerned about real estate agents and brokers in a given region setting fees and schedules and commissions amongst themselves, which on the face of it seems to be restrictive of trade. Do you think his concern is legitimate?

[Michael Janigan]

No, I don't. I think there are a number of different exemptions in the act, particularly related to efficiency, for example. They are probably more generous than I would have drafted and would allow the competition tribunal, for example, to look carefully at what the intent of any agreement is, whether or not it is beneficial across the board and whether or not it brings efficiency into the process. And if it is anti-competitive, if it has an anti-competitive effect, it will be struck down. That may be troublesome for that industry, but over the whole course of economic life it's helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Laforest.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening to all of our witnesses.

I have specific question for Mr. Laliberté. You represent the members of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the vast majority of whom live in Quebec. You did not talk about this, but sweeping measures to help Ontario's automobile industry were announced in the budget. A total of $2.7 billion has been committed, including loan guarantees for the auto industry. However, Quebec, as we know, is virtually devoid of an auto industry, except for a handful of subcontractors.

However, the province is home to one industry—the forestry industry—that has been in very dire straits since 2005. As it so happens, many members of your federation are employed by forest product processing companies. The budget commits only $170 million for Canada's entire forestry industry, and the Conservative government stubbornly insists that because of the softwood lumber agreement, it cannot provide any loan guarantees, which isn't true. It isn't true, because the Quebec government has in fact provided such guarantees through Investissement Québec to support businesses. Given the size of the stimulus package for the auto industry, do you not think that the situation is more than a little unfair to the workers you represent?

[Pierre Laliberté]

You are quite right to point out the lack of diligence, as far as this situation is concerned. The crisis in the forestry industry is not a Quebec crisis, but rather a national crisis. As you correctly pointed out, the alarm bells have been sounding for several years and it was clear that in Quebec in particular, there were problems with outdated equipment. Without question, loan guarantees could have been of invaluable assistance. You are right. As a union, this was one of our demands, in order to...

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

...protect jobs.

[Pierre Laliberté]

Absolutely. Also, in cases where there was no other choice but to close a processing plant, we demanded some assistance to see people through the transition period.

This brings me back to POWA. It's somewhat disconcerting to realize that the government has no game plan. Even in the case of the auto industry, we get the impression that everything is a little vague. The same is true when it comes to ownership. There are virtually no Canadian-owned forestry companies left anymore. The same can be said of metal and mining sector companies. While it's upsetting that the Montreal Exchange is moving to Toronto, fewer companies are trading on the TSX because companies are no longer operating in Canada. I think we have a problem here.

Philosophically speaking, before the current government took office, the situation was neglected. It is time to ask ourselves some serious questions, such as: Do we really want a forestry industry that produces value added products? What type of equipment do we want? How do we compare? What is our strategy?

There is another important factor to consider. Can our manufacturing sector survive dollar parity? That is what we can expect to see after the recovery takes hold. Many Canadian industries are in danger of being killed by our petro-currency. These are some major questions that never seem to be addressed. If the government doesn't move to set up forums to discuss these issues, we have to wonder who will take the initiative.

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

Since I don't have a lot of time, I will simply say that had broader consultations taken place, given what you have just said, it would have been very interesting to discuss the issues that you identified.

I have a question for Mr. Poirier. I didn't quite understand you when you said that this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that won't come along again for 20 years.

[Claude Poirier]

Historically, whenever a classification conversion occurs in the Public Service, there is no need to repeat the exercise every five years. The conversion is done once. The value of the work, the position and the duties associated with it are evaluated using an analysis grid that itself must be re-evaluated. A new analysis grid is drawn up. Then, job descriptions are drafted.

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

In this case, the conversion is ready to be implemented.

[Claude Poirier]

We have been working on this for almost seven years. We were in the final stage that involved negotiating pay scales. The government is claiming that bargaining doesn't work, when in fact it works very well. One good example is the case of the Library of Parliament analysts. The union has just signed an agreement in principle the terms of which were negotiated, not imposed on this group. The contract was negotiated by mutual agreement, albeit with a different employer, the Library of Parliament. The union did not negotiate in this instance with Treasury Board. The employer was different, but everything worked out very well. Obviously, because of the economic climate, our employees may be forced to give in. I'm talking about what could happen, because the agreement has yet to be ratified. Our members still must vote, but the union has recommended that they accept the proposed offer, which calls for very small salary increases.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, Monsieur Laforest.

We'll go to Mr. Wallace, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our guests tonight for coming at this hour on a Monday. I really appreciate it.

I have a few questions in my seven minutes. We've heard a lot of delegations today, so I want to be perfectly clear.

I'm going to ask Mr. Olsen to answer, if you don't mind.

You're here representing FETCO. I know we didn't hear the conclusion of your presentation, but you're basically in favour of the changes we're proposing in this legislation, is that right?

[David Olsen]

Yes, sir, that is correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

We had a presentation earlier from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, from Mr. Grenville-Wood, general counsel. He has a different view. He'd like to see it separated out. There's no doubt he'd like to see it as separate legislation. But he also adds, in his conclusions, the following phrase: “while meeting the overall objective of having pay equity the subject of negotiations between the employer and the various public service unions”.

To me, that means he also agrees that it should be part of the employer-union agreement package. Again, just so you hear this, he said, “while meeting the overall objective of having pay equity the subject of negotiations between the employer and the various public service unions”. Based on that, I think he agrees that it should be part of the agreement.

I know you don't have it in front of you, but perhaps you could comment.

[David Olsen]

I don't know the context, so I'm just surmising that he advocates a separate piece of legislation but agrees with the principle that the issue of equal pay for work of equal value should be addressed at the bargaining table.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

At the bargaining table, okay.

Have you been advocating for this position for a while, or is this something new for your organization?

[David Olsen]

FETCO appeared before the Bilson task force looking into this issue in 2002. Certainly it was the position of FETCO at that time, based on the work of Professor Weiler, that for the unionized workplace the two processes should be integrated. That is, equal pay for work of equal value should be integrated with the collective bargaining process.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I appreciate that clarification.

Regarding the joint presentation from our delegations representing consumer advocacy groups, I guess you'd say, there's another part of the budget that I don't think you mentioned; maybe I missed it. We're doing some work with credit cards, basically, in terms of fairness and transparency. Do you have any comment on what we're trying to accomplish in the area of credit card control that is outlined in this economic action plan?

[Michael Janigan]

I'm afraid we haven't studied the issue empirically. Certainly our reaction to the fact that the government is moving in this direction is a positive one. We hope to be able to provide something more substantive in the future to assist the government in their plans.