Finance Committee on May 23rd, 2013

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Caron.

Mr. Adler, please, for your round.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank everybody for being here today. I know you're all very busy within your respective organizations, so we really appreciate your time here today.

Mr. Georgetti, I don't think anybody would disagree with the fact that one person out of work is one too many in this country, so I think we're all on the same page there.

Mr. Brison earlier criticized our government in terms of our relationship with labour. It was his party that introduced wage and price controls. It was his party that downloaded services in the nineties, which caused huge pains for provincial governments in their collective bargaining with the trade unions. It was his former leader who reopened collective bargaining agreements in Ontario that had been fairly and equitably negotiated.

Mr. Carlton, we've made the gas tax fund permanent. We've indexed it. How important is that for cities in this country to now have the ability to rely upon stable and consistent funding?

[Brock Carlton]

Well, you have almost answered the question. It's extremely important, and the predictability of it and the long-term nature of it is essential as part of the solution to the municipal infrastructure deficit.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

How important would you say our cities are to our country's economy?

[Brock Carlton]

I think there's no question that the cities and towns in this country are the engines of the economy, whether they are big cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, etc., or the smaller towns in the rural areas. They are the places where Canadians are employed. They are the places where production is most significant, and they are the places where there is creativity and innovation in the economy. The strength of the municipal sector, the capacities in the municipalities, and the infrastructure that is the foundation for the operations within a municipality are essential to the economic viability of this country.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

We give the money to the cities, and they spend it as they see fit. Are there any cities in your estimation that are spending their money wisely? Let's just assume they all do, but more wisely than others. Which city or cities would that be, and what sort of things are they doing that would be of value for us to hear?

[Brock Carlton]

I don't think I could characterize one place over another. Every city or town is dealing with their local priorities and their local demands in ways that fit with the needs in their communities. They are all following democratic process and due diligence with respect to the way their money is spent and responding to local priorities.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

In terms of engines of job creation, cities are significant. Correct?

[Brock Carlton]

Yes.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

The infrastructure needs of cities, how critical are they right now? We all know about what we can see in terms of what's above the city. But what about what's beneath the city, the infrastructure that's lying under the roads and under the buildings? A lot of that was built.... Some of it's 50, 60, or 75 years old. What's the lifespan of that, and how important is it to start to think about replacing all that underground infrastructure?

[Brock Carlton]

If you want to talk specifically, a lot of the below-grade infrastructure relates to water and sewerage, you're correct. Some of the infrastructure is much older, in fact, than what you're indicating. If you look, for example, at the city of Montreal and some of the other older cities in the country, some of the older water pipes are wood.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Really?

[Brock Carlton]

Yes. In order for the quality of life that Canadians expect, in order for the kinds of quality communities where investors want to put their resources so we create jobs and productivity in this country, that kind of infrastructure is essential. Whether it's the water systems or sewage systems underground, whether it's the road systems at grade, those are the foundations of the economy and the productivity of our existing communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thirty seconds.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Okay, I'm good.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Adler.

Mr. Rankin, it's your round.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you for making it here.

I'd first like to ask a question of Mr. Aylward. First of all, I really appreciated your commentary, sir, on the impact of the cuts and your experience with the Canada Revenue Agency, in particular. As critic and as a member of Parliament for Victoria, I have so many people coming into my office daily complaining about the impact of those cuts on their lives. I can only tell you I appreciate very much what you're saying.

I wanted to put a focus on the Bank of Canada employees, one of the groups you represent. I want to give you a scenario and ask if you think this is realistic in light of the proposed amendments in Bill C-60. Let's say a Bank of Canada economist publishes some kind of research paper that concludes that current government fiscal policy is inadequate in some fashion. The Treasury Board orders that her salary be cut in half. Is that the kind of possible arrangement that could be in place, the kinds of changes that could be made as a consequence of Bill C-60, in your view?

[Chris Aylward]

That's exactly what we refer to when we talk about the unilateral interference by cabinet, yes.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I guess it's either to you or Mr. Georgetti, both of you have enormous experience in collective bargaining. Mr. Georgetti, in particular, used the expression that the impact of Bill C-60's changes would be to “freeze collective bargaining”. I think you indicated there would be two decisions, a Treasury Board decision and the person at the negotiating table, and it might be hard. You have two separate decisions. It might slow things down. You used the term “freeze”.

I'd like to hear both of you talk a little about what the dynamic would be if this change were implemented vis-à-vis crown corporations.

[Kenneth V. Georgetti]

I've had this experience and what it does for the management-side negotiators is freeze their ability to make compromises at a bargaining table, because they have to look over their shoulder and wait for permission from someone else. If that someone else doesn't have the responsibility for the outcome, as my friend from the PSAC says, productivity and morale start to suffer because you're dragging bargaining on and people don't have a settlement. The effect of it is profound.

The great effect of collective bargaining is that you get it done, you get it ratified, you get it over. We do that about 96.8% of the time and we get good settlements. The longer bargaining goes on—you've seen it here yourselves, all of you—the less productive it is. It has an effect in the workplace, but it also has an effect on the outcome of productivity going forward after the agreement, because the employer side doesn't take responsibility for the outcome anymore. Someone else decided for them and it doesn't work—it just doesn't work.

[Chris Aylward]

Just to add to what Mr. Georgetti just said, it has a tremendous trickle-down effect, a very detrimental trickle-down effect. There's nothing worse, and again I speak from experience, than sitting at a bargaining table and having to listen to “we have to check back with our principals”, and literally waiting for days at the bargaining table for the employer to come back and respond to very simple bargaining demands.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

To you, sir, could the Treasury Board change the bargaining mandate entirely of a crown corporation and perhaps force it to engage in regressive bargaining, force it to even violate existing labour law? If so, what recourse would you have if the Treasury Board were the real decision-maker?

[Chris Aylward]

The only real recourse we would have, of course, would be through the bargaining process. Depending on what the dispute settlement route may be, that would certainly be one. Even in the current process where Treasury Board is involved, and I'm going to speak to a specific group, our technical services members, who are members of PSAC, known as TC members. They went through bargaining last year and reached an impasse. They went though a public interest commission, and that public interest commission report was produced in January.

We're supposed to receive a response within 30 days of the report being produced. We've yet to receive a response from Treasury Board.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have about 30 seconds, Mr. Rankin.