Finance Committee on May 23rd, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

Mr. Jean, you may speak to the motion.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wasn't really sure. I looked at this because, of course, this is very similar to Mr. Adler's position, and that is that we're already studying exactly what he wants to study. He had the opportunity to bring forward witnesses to testify and for him to ask questions of just like we have today, but he didn't bring them forward. So they wanted the study. I couldn't figure out why that was the case, Mr. Chair, until I did a little digging.

My understanding is—please, correct me if I'm wrong—that the NDP are actually graded on the amount of motions they get passed in this place. They're graded by the party leadership. I'm just thinking to myself. I'm interested in certain testimony, but we already have a process in place for that testimony. Bluntly, Mr. Caron and the other NDP members could have asked for particular witnesses to come here today. They have that ability and they could have put them on the witness list, on the day, in particular, we were studying that part of the act.. But they didn't do so. I was wondering why, as I said.

They're doing it for party leadership and for their own self-promotion. I think that's wrong, Mr. Chair. I wasn't going to raise it as a point of order, but I certainly think it's something that we should consider in this committee in the future, if they're going to compromise our work and indeed waste our time on the basis of their own self-promotion and their own party. I think that's uncalled for and I don't think it's necessary.

I would certainly vote against this particular motion, and I hope my colleagues support me on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Monsieur Caron and then Mr. Brison.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I am absolutely appalled by this government's refusal to even uphold the principles of good governance. Some fundamental issues are involved here. However, the government would have us believe that we can address important issues related to the independence of the Bank of Canada and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board in two and a half meetings. We will be hearing from witnesses who will provide us with interesting and relevant information. However, they will ultimately be talking about two separate parts and about a dozen divisions of part 3. All we want is to hear from a few witnesses.

If we had an opportunity to hold four, five or six committee meetings, we could have perhaps invited representatives from the Investment Board or the Bank of Canada who could have told us about this issue. We have two and a half meetings to discuss a bill that will amend some 20 pieces of legislation. The fact that the government is beginning to doubt the underlying principles or the philosophy behind the NDPs motions is absolutely astonishing to me. We are not doing this for us, you or the committee. We are doing this for the sake of those two organizations' principles of independence, which are fundamentally important for Canada's financial and monetary systems.

Some of our economist colleagues should recognize that. Yet all they want to do is eliminate any discussion as quickly as possible. That is why the time limit was imposed on us in committee. We are hearing testimony and we already know the outcome because the Standing Committee on Finance has not adopted any amendments on a budget bill.

As a government, are you really serious about wanting to adopt and uphold the principles of good governance? Or are you simply trying to push an ideological agenda without taking anything else into account and without taking the time to truly consider the consequences of your actions as a government?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

Mr. Brison, and then Mr. Jean.

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

I support the New Democrat motion, but to Mr. Jean's comments, Mr. Jean has accused the New Democrats of engaging in self-promotion. Does this represent a fundamental shift in Conservative government policy? If so, will they cut the economic action plan advertisements that are costing hundreds of millions of dollars of hard-earned Canadian tax dollars? That's perhaps for consideration. I'm just trying to be constructive.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean, please.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know what Mr. Brison has against supporting Canadian media.

Just for the record, very quickly, Mr. Chair, I noticed that the New Democrats did not deny what I suggested. I would suggest an A for effort and an F for results.

I'd like to go to the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We will then go to the vote on Monsieur Caron's motion.

(Motion negatived)

We'll go to Mr. Rankin's motion.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Perhaps in the interests of time, this is a very straightforward motion. It simply suggests that this committee invite the Auditor General and his officials to appear before the committee before June 11 to discuss chapter 3, “Status Report on Collecting Tax Debts—Canada Revenue Agency”, in the Auditor General's spring 2013 update.

The committee will have received a letter from Mr. Ferguson dated May 6 in which he seems to ask for the opportunity to speak. He says that he and his staff would be pleased to come to the committee and meet with us about the crucial issues that he points out in his status report. Among which is the uncollected tax debt increasing by 60% since 2006. It has risen from $18 billion to $29 billion dollars, with 10% of the total tax debt written-off each year.

Mr. Chair, this would seem to be something worthy of the finance committee's attention. It seems self-evident that if the Auditor General has something to talk to us about, we would want to hear him on such an enormously important issue. That's the reason for the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. McLeod, on this motion.

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

I will leave the more general comments because I've made them already. I think there are two important features to note. The Auditor General made some very valuable observations and recommendations which, of course, we've moved ahead to implement. I also want to acknowledge that he acknowledged the important progress that the government had made on this very important issue in terms of having systems and processes.

Certainly, I compare that with 2006, which was unsatisfactory following the Liberal government, to what was a great movement in strides.

It was interesting yesterday when my colleague, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, was quite puzzled by this. He said the Auditor General was before public accounts, I believe it was May 2. Certainly that was the opportunity. I know on our side, if there are particular chapters, we ensure the person who has an interest in those particular chapters actually participates in those meetings.

The Auditor General has appeared before public accounts. They had a very robust discussion. That was a great opportunity for Mr. Rankin, if he had specific ideas or thoughts, to discuss at that time.

Again, given both my more general comments and the great clarity of the report the Auditor General put out, we will not support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to the vote on this motion.

(Motion negatived)

Colleagues, you do have two budget requests before you. First of all for this study, for Bill C-60, the amount requested is $26,500. That is approximately $10,000 less than what was initially sent to committee members. It's less than what we had thought, initially.

Are there any questions or concerns? Can I get someone to move this? So moved by Mr. Jean. All in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

Secondly, with respect to our study of Bill C-462, you did raise some concerns about the budget previously. It has been adjusted downward substantially.

Any questions or concerns about this budget? Can I get a mover for this? Mr. Jean again. All in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, colleagues.

We will move to our second panel. I want to thank our witnesses for being very patient while we were dealing with the three motions and two budget items.

We have six people to present. First of all, as an individual, we have Mr. George Smith, a fellow and adjunct professor from Queen's University. We have, representing the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Ms. Judy Dezell. From the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, we have the national director, Ms. Diane Bergeron. From the Canadian Union of Public Employees, we have Mr. Denis Bolduc, general secretary. From the Canadian Urban Transit Association, we have Mr. Patrick Leclerc, and by teleconference, we have Monsieur Florian Sauvageau.

Monsieur Sauvageau, can you hear me?

[Florian Sauvageau, Emeritus Professor, Information and Communications Department, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Yes, I hear you very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We were not able to do a video conference today. I apologize to colleagues and to Monsieur Sauvageau.

You will each have up to five minutes for an opening statement and we will proceed in that order.

We will start with Mr. Smith, please.

[George Smith, Fellow and Adjunct Professor, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to comment on Bill C-60 as it relates to industrial relations in Canada.

My name is George Smith and I'm a fellow in the School of Policy Studies and an adjunct professor in the School of Industrial Relations and the School of Business at Queen's University. Prior to joining Queen's in 2010, I had a 37-year career in Canadian business, practising industrial relations as the chief management negotiator for Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway, and CBC/Radio-Canada. I believe that I can offer you both the academic and practitioner points of view on the impact of the provisions of Bill C-60.

My interest here today is not to represent any party that may be affected by the enactment of this legislation, but rather to outline the significant potential impacts of the proposed legislation on free collective bargaining in Canada.

Please understand that I know about cost control in crown corporations. I was part of the privatization of Air Canada; the revitalization of the Canadian railway industry, including CN as a crown corporation; and the modernization of CBC's collective agreement. This involved tough bargaining, negotiating out what had been negotiated in to meet new competitive pressures. Free collective bargaining achieved these necessary changes. Was it easy? No. Did it work? Yes.

As it relates to the legislation before us, I must first note that this unilateral proposal to change collective bargaining in Canadian crown corporations is the antithesis of my multiple previous experiences with legislative reform of industrial relations in the federal sector. Those previous experiences often involved tripartite consultation with all interested parties before changes to the Canada Labour Code were made by the government in power.

These proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act buried in Bill C-60 contradict both the spirit and intent of the Canada Labour Code as articulated in its preamble and create a role for government in crown corporation collective bargaining that is not contemplated in the Canada Labour Code.

The preamble in part reads:

AND WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices, and deems the development of good industrial relations to be in the best interests of Canada in ensuring a just share of the fruits of progress to all....

In my four decades of experience, the role of government in the collective bargaining process consistent with this preamble has been to support positive bargaining outcomes through federal mediation and conciliation services. This proposed legislation contemplates an active role for government as a player in the collective bargaining process, approving mandates and supervising negotiations.

Not only is this role contrary to the Canada Labour Code, but the adverse impact on collective bargaining will be significant. Unions will not know who the employer is if the government is controlling mandates in the backroom. Governance processes at crown corporations will surely be confused when CEOs and boards of directors have their powers to approve collective bargaining mandates superseded by Treasury Board, and the collective bargaining process itself will be negatively impacted by the unusual and unwanted presence of Treasury Board at the bargaining table.

Relationships between labour and management, which are fragile at best during stressful negotiations, will be strained to the point of breaking, with the negative consequence of ensuring labour disputes. There will be costs to the economy. In some, an already complex process will be complicated to the point where, in my considered professional opinion, it will become totally dysfunctional.

Finally, my comments must be taken in the context of previous interventions of this government into industrial relations that are inconsistent with the Canada Labour Code as written. Since May 2011 there have been five instances of back-to-work legislation that have cumulatively threatened collective bargaining in Canada, including the right to strike or lockout. As well, I might add that substituting interest arbitration for the right to strike has not achieved the desired bargaining outcomes in most of these cases. The CEO of Air Canada recently declared his collective agreement uncompetitive as he launched another cost-cutting process.

This heavy-handed, ad hoc government intervention has become enough of a pattern that a proper policy debate of the potential reform to the Canada Labour Code is absolutely necessary.

I urge you to consider the significant impact of these sections of Bill C-60 in this context and amend the bill. Alternatively, send these proposed amendments to the human resources committee to review them in the context of the entire Canada Labour Code. Or, ideally, recommend the creation of a tripartite consultative process under the auspices of the Minister of Labour to review these and other potential amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

The fundamental Canadian freedom of collective bargaining is being threatened. I submit that a full public policy debate is necessary before changes of this significance are made. Canadians deserve nothing less.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Smith.

We'll go to Ms. Dezell, please.

[Judy Dezell, Manager, Gas Tax Implementation, Association of Municipalities of Ontario]

Thank you for including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in your study of Bill C-60.

I would like to address division 18 of the bill, which proposes the indexing of Canada's gas tax fund.

AMO administers the gas tax fund to all municipalities in Ontario, except Toronto. We distribute the fund twice a year on a per capita basis. Municipalities can count on this stable and predictable administration model and invest the fund where they need it the most. Our unique model has been proven to deliver.

Between 2005 and 2011, Ontario municipalities invested more than $2.1 billion gas tax dollars in over 3,800 projects. These projects have produced 3,900 kilometres of safer roads, 240 safer bridges, 230 additional transit buses added to municipal fleets, over 106,000 tonnes of waste diverted from Ontario landfills, and 136,000 metres of new and rehabilitated water, storm, and waste water pipes, among many other positive outcomes.

Canada's gas tax fund improves the lives of Ontarians by making our communities safer, more efficient, and prosperous. The fund has helped communities keep construction-related jobs in the face of economic uncertainty. In response, Ontario municipalities are transparent in reporting where they invest the fund and in sharing project benefits with the community. The way the fund is administered in Ontario has proven to be effective, efficient, and accountable. A number of third party evaluations have confirmed this fact.

Despite the direct benefits of Canada's gas tax fund, it is no secret that Ontario's infrastructure is under pressure. Much of it was first built in the 1950s and 1960s, and needs to be upgraded or replaced. In some Ontario communities, population growth is increasing the burden on local infrastructure and fuelling demand for new investments. Other municipalities have a lot of assets to maintain but a shrinking population base and declining tax revenues.

In 2008, the joint provincial-municipal fiscal and service delivery review determined that Ontario municipalities face a $60 billion infrastructure gap that will take 10 years to close. That means every community in Ontario needs $6 billion per year every year for 10 years. This is a gap in our core critical infrastructure, such as transit, water, waste water, storm water, solid waste, and roads and bridges. It does not include other key areas of municipal infrastructure, such as recreation, culture, and in Ontario, social housing. The infrastructure gap exists in all Ontario municipalities, no matter the size or location.

While working to address this need, we are very pleased that Parliament made the gas tax fund permanent in 2011. We are also pleased that budget 2013 committed to expanding the list of eligible project categories and to indexing the fund starting in 2014-15. Expanding the list of project categories makes the fund even more flexible and allows municipalities to address the needs that are unique to their communities.

Division 18 of Bill C-60 seeks to implement indexing, and we applaud this. Indexing is absolutely essential so that the fund grows over time to meet inflation and the rise in construction costs. Indexing ensures municipalities can rely on Canada's gas tax fund as a stable, predictable, and long-term source of funding to address the infrastructure gap felt in all communities.

However, based on our understanding of the formula proposed in the bill, municipalities will have to wait before they experience the positive outcomes of indexation. The need for investment is now, not only because of the infrastructure gap but because investment drives the economy of the future. Municipal infrastructure provides the support to the social, cultural, and commercial activity that leads to a dynamic and prosperous Canadian economy.

If we are correct and the formula is not changed, we ask that the government tell us how much in gas tax funds will be transferred now and in future years, so that municipalities can plan for the long term. Predictability is one of the most important and welcome features of the gas tax fund. It is especially important in Ontario, since municipalities are now working on long-term asset management plans.

The plans consider how much it will cost to rehabilitate and replace infrastructure in order to meet desired service levels. Predictability is the key to implementing these plans since it ensures that funding will be there when it is needed the most. We hope that the federal government considers the immediate need for safe, efficient, and sustainable communities when it implements the gas tax fund indexing in division 18 of Bill C-60.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Please wrap up quickly.

[Judy Dezell]

I'm done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much. Good timing.

We will now go to Ms. Bergeron.

[Diane Bergeron, National Director, Government Relations and Advocacy, Canadian National Institute for the Blind]

Thank you.

Before I start, I would just like to explain how I'm going to do this presentation since I can't read print. I am partially sighted, hence the dog at my feet. I'm using a talking computer and I have an earphone in my ear. It will be reading out loud to me what I'm saying afterwards. If I stumble, I apologize.

On behalf of CNIB, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance, the finance committee, and the federal government for their continued leadership and support of the development of equitable library services for Canadians with print disabilities as part of its 2013 economic action plan. An estimated 10% of Canadians have a print disability, and only 6% of published works are available in alternate formats. Canadians with print disabilities include people who are blind or partially sighted, like myself, people with impairments related to comprehension, and people who are unable to hold a book. For Canadians with print disabilities, access to reading material in alternative formats increases literacy, encourages lifelong learning, and improves opportunities for employment and community engagement.

When I was doing my master's degree at Royal Roads University, I was required to do a proposal for a research project. I was excited to find a book written by a Canadian author called, Seeing Beyond Blindness. This book was all about teaching and education, from birth to grave, of blind and partially sighted people. Interestingly, the book was not available in an alternate format. It took me four weeks to receive the book in an alternate format, three weeks after my paper was due. It significantly affected my education.

Access to materials and alternate formats improves quality of life for Canadians, including seniors with print disabilities. It prolongs their ability to enjoy leisure reading and supports their social engagement. In Pigeon Lake, Alberta, not far from where I live in Edmonton, there is a man named Gary. Gary is 80 years old and a good friend of mine. Pigeon Lake is not close to a city and there is no public transportation. Gary is totally blind and although he uses a computer, downloading books is very difficult. Gary relies on receiving his books in DAISY format on a CD in order to listen to books, and that is his chief form of entertainment. Typically, once a week, somebody will go and pick Gary up and take him to town, but other than that, his main source of entertainment, leisure, and interaction is with the books that are provided to him with the DAISY player.

The funding set aside in Bill C-60 will support CNIB's work with public libraries and community leaders to progress towards the creation of a new organization, the national digital hub. This is independent of CNIB and it will support public libraries in their delivery of equitable public library services. The funding will also allow CNIB to acquire and produce, for the national digital hub, over 105,000 additional alternate format materials in e-text, DAISY, audio, CD, and e-books to navigate digital material and Braille. This new content, the CNIB Library's total collection, will be available to Canadians with print disabilities through public libraries, direct service points, and the web.

Once again, we thank the Government of Canada for its leadership and commitment to improving access to library services to Canadians with print disabilities in the 2013 economic action plan.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Ms. Bergeron.

We now go to you, Mr. Bolduc, for your presentation. You have five minutes.

[Denis Bolduc, General Secretary, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Québec, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of the Standing Committee on Finance, thank you for having us.

My name is Denis Bolduc. I am the General Secretary of CUPE Quebec and the Regional Vice-President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

CUPE has over 600,000 members across the country, but I am appearing before you today more particularly on behalf of two unions that represent CBC employees in Quebec and in Moncton. I am talking about CUPE Local 675, which represents 600 office and professional employees, and the Syndicat des techniciens et artisans du réseau français de Radio-Canada, which represents 1,200 workers.

We have come all the way to Ottawa to tell you that we are strongly opposed to the amendments proposed to the Financial Administration Act in division 17 of Bill C-60. The adoption of those new provisions would wipe away decades of Canadian democratic tradition and turn the country's entire labour relations regime on its head. CUPE cannot support such amendments because they jeopardize fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and association, as well as the right to free collective bargaining.

The adoption of the amendments proposed in division 17 of Bill C-60 would enable the government to interfere in crown corporations' bargaining processes. As soon as the order has been passed, the Treasury Board could give crown corporations negotiating mandates, send observers to participate in talks in order to impose working conditions and prevent the signing of collective agreements they do not find acceptable. All those provisions clearly violate the right to freely associate as we know it in Canada.

As you know, the exercise of that freedom is safeguarded by the Canada Labour Code, which defines the employer as the person who employs the workers. So unions are supposed to negotiate with the employer—in good faith, of course. However, the government is using Bill C-60 to propose that the collective bargaining process be entrusted to a third party—the Treasury Board. That would change the rules of the game, lead to more appeals and, ultimately, harm good labour relations.

As a member of the International Labour Organization, Canada is committed to respecting and promoting the fundamental right to collective bargaining. That is why we are asking you to remove the proposed amendments to the Financial Administration Act from Bill C-60.

Further to the impact on collective bargaining, in CBC's case, Bill C-60 would conflict with the Broadcasting Act. That piece of legislation states the following:The Corporation shall, in the pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, enjoy freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence.

The CBC's board of directors is highly independent. It can hire the employees it deems necessary to its operations, determine its employment and remuneration conditions, purchase equipment, and even acquire broadcasting companies without asking anyone's permission.

So the presence of government representatives at the negotiation table would set a dangerous precedent that would reduce the crown corporation's level of independence. It would also open the door to political interference in journalism. A lack of managerial autonomy restricts freedom of expression and turns public broadcasters into state broadcasters. That is not what Canadians want. They want to benefit from information provided by journalists who are free to investigate any topics they choose. No government should have control over a broadcaster of the CBC's stature. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right enshrined in the charter.

The CBC's independence must absolutely be preserved. The public broadcaster must not become a government-controlled propaganda tool, regardless of which government is in power. That is a fundamental principle. So that's another reason to reject government interference in the CBC's management and programming that Bill C-60 would make possible.

In closing, CUPE is wondering why the government is proposing this legislative amendment. Is there a problem that needs to be resolved? If so, it has not been brought to light, and it should be.

So far, all we have seen in this bill is a vicious attack on crown corporation employees and all Canadians. Bill C-60 would amend all the crown corporation empowering legislation by taking away those corporations' negotiating independence. It could also end up turning the public broadcaster into a state-controlled broadcaster.

Once again, I want to thank you for the invitation and for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Leclerc, go ahead.