Evidence of meeting #124 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cbc.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Not to reiterate what's already been said, but it's very obvious that this government has shown nothing but disdain and contempt for working families and workers in this country—unionized or non-unionized. From the day they received a majority government, they forced the hard-working men and women of the Canada Post Corporation out on the street, only to, a couple of weeks later, force them back to work.
It just continues from there.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
May 23rd, 2013 / 9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you all for coming.
Of course, I have to carry on with that line. I take exception to it, and I'll tell you why. Not only do I represent those people you're talking about, a lot of these people are my friends too.
There's a big difference, and I want to challenge you. The difference is that in other collective bargaining situations there is competition. I know Canadians recognize—and I think I can speak for the government—the good work that our public service does. We see that in this office time and time again, the excellent work that they do.
However, somebody has to be at the table to say yes or no. Here is a case in point. Mr. Aylward, you mentioned the post office. We'll carry on with that one. The fact that you have a collective bargaining agreement where employees cannot be laid off is great if you have a situation where there's competition. If General Motors wants to do that and wants to go up against Chrysler, the rest of the Detroit Three, and the Japanese, that's a different situation.
But when there's no competition, I think Mr. Charette has the right attitude. Somebody has to come in, especially when they don't have those benefits or the same salaries, and say, “Wait a minute. We're the people who are making the payments. We're the people who are paying those salaries. We're the people who are paying for those pensions.”
I'm going to let you respond to that, Mr. Charette.
Would you maybe elaborate on that theme?
9:30 a.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Fair Pensions for All
You're very right. We will hear some say that it's not a matter that they have contracts that are too rich in the public sector; it's that they're not good enough in the private sector. But go and tell your boss, if you're in the private sector, that you want a better deal.
You've put your finger on the precise problem. The boss in the private sector has competition. It may be foreign competition. It may be competition down the street. Nevertheless, they're constrained by that competition. The public sector unions are dealing with employers that are monopolists, mostly, and do not have customers but taxpayers funding the revenue they collect.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I'm going to cut in. I take exception also to what Mr. Brison said to insinuate that this is something new. I would suggest that past governments have just not stood up to what they should have done. Now we're in a situation where because we are taxed.... We are taxed to the limit.
Mr. Georgetti, you mentioned yourself what a shambles finances have become in most western governments. Now we must react. Is it something we want to do? Absolutely not. As I said, these are my friends. These are my colleagues, and often they are people I live beside. It's something we must recognize. It's just that something has to be done.
Mr. Aylward, how do you respond to that?
9:35 a.m.
National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Thank you for the question, and thank you for allowing me the time to respond.
Let's just look at putting somebody at the table to be able to say yes or no, as you put it. When you do that, that simply puts a drag on the whole process. It doesn't allow for the process to carry on naturally.
When we look at the Canada Revenue Agency, which was created in 1999, there were five rounds of very successful bargaining. I sat on the bargaining team in 2007 and 2010. In 2007, after six days of face-to-face negotiations at the bargaining table, we reached a tentative agreement. In 2010, we had five days of face-to-face negotiation at the bargaining table. Last year this government put in the 2012 budget that the CRA must now get its bargaining mandate from the Treasury Board.
Last October the union of taxation employees, which is a component of PSAC, started negotiating. After eight weeks of face-to-face negotiations at the bargaining table, they're still without a deal. That's costing taxpayers money. I don't know how you would explain that.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I would by saying that, as Mr. Charette has pointed out—the previous government allowed for negotiations that just aren't acceptable. At some point, the government has to—
9:35 a.m.
National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
This government wants to have a race to the bottom, which we are not interested in at all. I mean, we're trying to protect—
9:35 a.m.
National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
—working families in this country, protect the middle class, and not enter into a race to the bottom.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll have to have this as an ongoing debate. I do have to move on.
Mr. Caron, you have the floor for five minutes.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will go to Mr. Charette first.
I have visited your website. I looked at the various interventions you have made and documents you have produced. Your organization's name is Fair Pensions for All. Yet not a single document shows that you advocate for economic security and better retirement.
Have you produced any documents or made an intervention or a presentation in the past with a view to improving economic security for our seniors?
9:35 a.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Fair Pensions for All
Now, you've asked me two questions. One has to do with children, and the other has to do with pensioners.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I'll ask it in English. Your name is Fair Pensions for All. I went to your website, and basically I haven't seen any documents or any presentation or any public policy documents that showed that you were actually looking for better economic security or better retirement conditions for our seniors. Have you ever produced a document showing this, given that your name is Fair Pensions for All?
9:35 a.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Fair Pensions for All
Well, my presentation this morning is part of that. It says, “Look. We do want fair pensions for all, and it's extremely unfair at the moment”. So you have to fix the ones—
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I'm asking if you have actually ever produced a document or made a presentation on improving economic security for our seniors, because all the documents I've seen are actually advocating a decrease in pensions for government employees, officials, crown corporations, or any other such organizations. I've never seen a document actually asking to increase or improve pension conditions for anybody.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Fair Pensions for All
We're trying to help the people who don't have pensions, basically the 10.5 million Canadians who don't have pensions at all.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I don't get the link between helping Canadians who actually have pensions and advocating against pension security for anybody that you decide you're going to go against and how that is actually improving their condition. Their pension condition won't be improved.
9:35 a.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Fair Pensions for All
What we want is to solve the unfairness. If you think you can solve it by making the kind of public sector pensions that are available to public sector workers available to all workers, and have that come out of all taxpayer funds, that's fine.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
But this won't be happening. This is not what we're discussing. We're discussing, basically, looking at those who are able to get better pensions, and just bringing them down. That's what you're advocating.
I'd like to mention your comments on the CPP. The arguments you presented were exactly the same arguments made about the sky falling when the CPP was initially introduced.
I'd like to go Mr. Morrison now.
Yesterday, Minister Flaherty said something very peculiar in response to a question asked by my colleague Ms. Nash.
Ms. Nash asked whether the provisions related to crown corporations had any negative impacts on the three organizations that, by definition, must remain independent—the Bank of Canada, the CBC and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. She provided some examples where journalists or Bank of Canada researchers could be affected.
In his response, the minister said the following:
that it won't happen. “This is not a dictatorship.”
That was his answer, word for word.
Is a dictatorship really necessary for the government to have an impact on the quality, objectivity and independence of information at the CBC?
9:40 a.m.
Spokesperson, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting
Public broadcasting throughout the world accompanies democracy. There are no free and democratic countries without public broadcasters. Some are stronger and some are weaker, but that is the case.
My answer to you is that I would urge the minister to reflect on this matter. I do not ascribe any motive to the government. Others can do that. I'm just concerned with the result. An unfortunate result—as is described in the rather articulate letter to the Prime Minister that has been circulated—is the threat of losing something very important to the democratic fabric of Canada, not instantly, but gradually, and we will live to regret it. It's unnecessary, and it's also undesirable.
