Finance Committee on May 23rd, 2013

[Patrick Leclerc, Vice-President, Strategic Development, Canadian Urban Transit Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair,

and members of the committee. I want to begin by thanking you for inviting me to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance to speak to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain provisions of the federal budget, which was tabled last March. The Canadian Urban Transit Association, CUTA, has about 500 members, including public transit systems, manufacturers and providers, government agencies, research centres and other industry players.

Last March, the federal government delivered on its promise to develop a new long-term infrastructure plan to replace the current Building Canada Plan, which will expire in 2014. Over the course of the plan's development and consultation process, CUTA has worked in conjunction with the government and the various stakeholders involved in infrastructure funding.

For CUTA, there were two critical elements we were looking for. It had to be long term and it had to include public transit as a central pillar.

We were pleased to see that the new building Canada plan met these two criteria. The long-term nature of this plan, a ten-year funding commitment, is the basis of good and long-term urban planning. In our sector, public transit projects are years in the making. Providing both stability and predictability for future investment is extremely important. We commend the government for such a strong commitment.

The other important factor was to ensure that public transit was at the core of the new plan. In that regard, the government built on the strength of the previous plan and went even further by making transit an eligible category for funding under every single program in the new plan.

Over the coming weeks and months, the government will be able to count on our collaboration in the development of various criteria for the plan's implementation. It's now important to identify the most effective ways to ensure adequate integrated mobility funding in communities of all sizes across the country. We must ensure that all Canadians—both in major urban centres and in smaller communities—have access to public transit options and other alternatives in terms of mobility.

The last point is about the indexing of the Gas Tax Fund. As announced in the budget, the federal government will increase the Gas Tax Fund by $1.8 billion over 10 years. The increases will be made in $100-million increments, as per the calculation method set out in division 18 of part 3 of Bill C-60.

Increasing the gas tax fund is an important element to ensure that the fund will maintain its actual value over the years and will keep up with inflation. As stated in economic action plan 2013, presented by the Minister of Finance, it is proposed that the GTF be increased by 2% annually, with increases to be applied in $100 million increments.

We applaud the government for this improvement, and we agree with the proposal to increase the GTF by 2% annually. Based on our experience, we believe the most effective way to ensure that the GTF keeps up with inflation over the long term is to fully apply the 2% annual increase instead of applying it in $100 million increments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

Now we will go to

Mr. Sauvageau for his presentation.

You have five minutes.

[Florian Sauvageau]

Good morning and thank you for the invitation to appear. My remarks are also about division 17 of part 3 of the bill and, more specifically, about the CBC's inclusion and submission in its bargaining on the Treasury Board.

In my humble opinion, that part of the bill is a serious and appalling breach of the principle of public broadcasting independence, which is one of the fundamental principles of public broadcasting.

I could perhaps quickly explain why I am speaking to this issue. I have been interested in these matters for a number of years. As some of the older individuals among you may remember, I co-chaired, with Gerald Caplan, the last task force that conducted a comprehensive study of issues in Canadian radio and television.

Our task force on broadcasting policy led to the 1991 Broadcasting Act.

It was in that spirit that I decided to come before you.

We have a choice between state television and public television. For decades, since the 1930s—I want to point out that we had a Conservative government at the time—Canadians have opted for public television based on the British model and with the fundamental principle of arm's length management. The bill's provisions undermine the arm's length principle. That principle has been reaffirmed by all governments and in all broadcasting legislation since the 1930s. We had the 1958 legislation, the 1968 legislation and the latest—once again adopted by a Conservative government—the 1991 legislation, which reaffirmed that public radio and television principle and the arm's length principle.

Independence—if we wanted it to mean something—includes independence in human and material resources management. Clearly, that independence does not exempt the public broadcaster from being held accountable. However, that organization is not to be held accountable by the government of the day. It is accountable to Parliament. Numerous mechanisms—sufficient in number—already exist to ensure that accountability. We have the CRTC and the relevant House of Commons Committee—the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The CBC is also subject to audits carried out by the Auditor General. Those audits are conducted very seriously and are used to assess quality. I have participated in two such audits, and I can assure you that the work done is of an impeccably high standard.

So, if the committee would like to know more about what public television is and what sets it apart from state television—and the same goes for radio, since it's a matter of public radio and television—our Centre d'études sur les médias prepared a booklet on the topic about 10 years ago. UNESCO has translated it into many languages in order to help countries—and especially eastern countries—coming out of a state-run television regime understand what public television is.

If the committee is interested, I can send you copies of the booklet in French and English. That was a way to recognize Canadian expertise. The Canadian system and its independence are clearly not perfect, but many people from around the world look to Canada when they want to create a public television system. The last thing we want to do is lose that. I want to reiterate that the proposed amendments—and I am not sure whether this is intentional or not—are unacceptable and that they undermine the CBC's independence. It is essential for the future of our democratic life to put a stop to this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will begin with Ms. Nash. You have five minutes.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to all of the witnesses. Thank you for being here. Bienvenue.

Mr. Smith, I want to address my questions to you this morning. I know you have a long history of representing management in collective bargaining, for decades, as you said in your remarks, and that you have great respect for the democratic process that collective bargaining represents.

I wonder if you think it's possible that those who have written and are proposing these changes, which would have the Treasury Board intervening directly in collective bargaining in crown corporations, don't really understand the collective bargaining process, and therefore don't understand the potential impact of the changes they are proposing here?

[George Smith]

I think that's entirely possible. It's one of the reasons I believe we need to have practitioners in the room discussing the potential short-term and long-term impact of the kinds of proposals that are being proposed.

I refer back to those consultative processes that have been used by previous governments, Conservative and Liberal, which used such processes so that the people who would actually be impacted, the people who are at the bargaining tables, have input and can provide the real-life stories from those bargaining tables of the kinds of potential impact the changes that are being proposed could have.

I am concerned that these changes are being made in isolation. I'm sure there is a back story that maybe we don't know about, but the problem is with their being presented in isolation and our not having an opportunity to fully discuss them and their potential impacts.

I also find it completely unusual. I've never discussed potential impacts on collective bargaining in front of the Standing Committee on Finance. Normally this would be in front of the human resources committee or a task force that had been commissioned by the government, or by the Minister of Labour. It would be in that forum with people for whom this is their life and their daily business, it would be among that group that those conversations would be taking place. So this is unusual and the first time in almost 40 years that I have made representations in front of a committee such as this.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Welcome to the finance committee where we discuss navigable waters, CSIS, the RCMP, anything that gets thrown into one of these omnibus budget bills. Welcome to the new world here.

I know that in my discussions with business and also from my history in collective bargaining that business really wants predictability and stability. When they negotiate a collective agreement it's so that they will have that predictability and stability going out, and it's so that the agreement they freely negotiate is the best one to suit the business conditions that a company is dealing with. I have to say I find it ironic that a government that professes to oppose big government has taken such a Big Brother approach to our crown corporations, and especially to collective bargaining.

Can you describe, based on your management experience in collective bargaining, what could be some potential outcomes to what is now a fairly stable labour relations environment, if these changes that are being proposed in Bill C-60 should come into play?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have about 30 seconds for a response.

[George Smith]

Yes, sir.

Collective bargaining is messy. Sometimes it causes inconvenience. Labour disputes, I would argue, are short-term pain for long-term gain. But the product of a freely negotiated collective agreement is an agreement that both sides agree to and both sides then commit to implement. That gives management the certainty, and it gives the employees and the unions certainty in the business environment.

It doesn't mean that those negotiations aren't difficult. But mandated change, in my experience, wherever it comes from, doesn't work. You cannot force unions and employees—and I'm speaking as a management negotiator now—to accept changes unless they have input and understanding as to why the changes are being made and what the implication of those changes will be for them.

If that's done properly, you can achieve it. It takes time, it's messy, and sometimes it involves disputes, but it's a much better way than mandating change. Mandated change doesn't work.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Ms. McLeod, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Certainly, it sounds to some degree that we're carrying on some of the conversations we had with the previous panel.

What I would really like to make comment on, first of all, is.... Mr. Bolduc, you asked what problem we are trying to solve. I think in the last panel we talked about the $88 million in supplementary estimates having to go to VIA Rail in terms of their pension plan. Our chair talked about the larger number, in terms of billions of dollars of unfunded pensions.

One of the examples, in terms of perhaps an agreement and a contract, Canada Post's collective agreement with CUPW includes a clause that CUPW members cannot be laid off. If an employee's position becomes surplus, for whatever reason, Canada Post must redeploy that employee within 40 kilometres of their previous job, or pay them to sit at home until a job becomes available.

In my community, the mill recently shut down. It was very difficult because 125 people lost their jobs. There are still 300, luckily. They kept the B line going. But those people had to look for other alternatives. I recognize it's very tough. I've been involved in the health care industry, where there are changes in the structure of our institutions and changes had to be made within the structure of the labour market.

Mr. Bolduc, within your organization, do you guarantee a job for every employee at the head office forever, regardless of whether there's work for them to do?

[Denis Bolduc]

I don't represent the Canada Post Corporation employees. However, overall, when specific requests are made regarding budget cuts, downsizing and so on, those issues are discussed at the negotiation table. People on the ground who are involved in that world on a daily basis are in a better position to explain and understand the causes and impacts of those situations. However, this bill takes those people out of the negotiation process. At the end of the day, the Treasury Board will make decisions about provisions and other aspects. That's a problem.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Bolduc, with respect, you asked what the problem is with some of the independent negotiations of the crown corporations. To me, this particular example speaks to the issue. The taxpayers that we're ultimately responsible for.... I don't think any reasonable Canadian supports that particular amendment. So again, I think what I've given is an example of what is a huge issue.

At this point I actually want to head to Ms. Bergeron. Certainly, I really appreciate you coming here today. I think maybe most of the MPs at this table, and probably across the country, had constituents come into their offices to talk about the digital hub for your organization. Certainly, I met with two community members in Kamloops. One of the pleasures of a parliamentarian, of course, is that we see what is a need, and see it go from presentations to committee, presentations in MPs' offices, to a reality in the budget.

I know you talked to some degree about what you're going to accomplish with this digital hub. I think Canadians would be interested to hear a lot more, in terms of the details of what this will actually do for community members.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

There's about one minute for a response, Ms. Bergeron.

[Diane Bergeron]

Margaret McGrory is our librarian at CNIB, and I think she can probably articulate it better, if that's okay.

[Margaret McGrory, Vice-President, Executive Director, Library, Canadian National Institute for the Blind]

With respect to your question about how the funds will be used for this project, there are two main objectives. One is to advance the project to take the library for people with print disabilities out of the charitable sector, which relies on donations for services, and put it where it belongs, in the public library sector. So part of the funding will be to work with public library leadership to effect that transition over the next year.

The other part, and major part of the funding, will be to run the operation of the CNIB Library and the hub, which is internally incubating within the CNIB at this time. It will produce alternative format material, as Ms. Bergeron explained. We have a collection of about 80,000 alternative format books: digital, Braille, etc. This will add a further 105,000 books to our collection, so it will allow us to produce that collection. It will also allow us to distribute the books to people who are blind and partially sighted throughout the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Brison for his round, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I'd like to begin not only by thanking the CNIB for being here and for their presentation, but by thanking them for their service to Canadians. It's not until you have a member of your own family directly engage with and receive services from the CNIB that you fully appreciate and understand the importance of the CNIB. On behalf of all Canadians, thank you for your remarkable service to people like my Aunt Margie in Cheverie, Nova Scotia, who, because of macular degeneration, could no longer read without the equipment and the materials you provide her, and it means so much to our family.

I want to ask Professor Smith a question about labour relations in Canada. In 2010, for instance, were labour relations bad in Canada? Was there significant unrest on the business side or on the government side? Were labour relations somehow turbulent and problematic in Canada?

[George Smith]

Labour relations tend to be cyclical, and relationships with unions and management in a general sense have their peaks and valleys. As I recall, 2010 was not particularly remarkable. In fact, many agreements are achieved under the radar. The ones where there's some sort of dispute get the attention, and it's a disproportionate amount of attention.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Compared to other industrialized countries, would the state of labour relations in Canada be considered reasonably good if you were a business looking at Canada? Is it pretty stable?

[George Smith]

Yes.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Then why is the government so hell-bent on making these changes? It reminds me of the saying, “if it ain't broke, fix it until it is broke”.

How many examples have you cited of government decisions since May of 2011 that threaten labour relations broadly?

[George Smith]

Well, there are five instances of intervention: three at Air Canada, one at Canada Post, and one at Canadian Pacific Railway.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Would you agree that good business relations are good for the business environment?