Finance Committee on May 28th, 2013

[Dennis Duggan]

I can't speak to it, generally speaking. I can only tell you the ones that are referred to in part X there.

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

Just to perhaps help here, according to a 2005 Treasury Board report, it states that these cultural corporations are exempted in order “to shield the explicit mandate assigned to the organization by Parliament against potential political interference.” That is from a 2005 Treasury Board report.

Has anything changed since 2005 that would affect—to use Treasury Board's words—“the explicit mandate assigned to the organization by Parliament against potential political interference?” Are you aware of any change?

[Dennis Duggan]

I'm sorry?

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

Are you aware of any changes that would render the Treasury Board's judgment in the report of 2005 obsolete today? Again, the Treasury Board report in 2005 said that these cultural corporations are exempted in order to “shield the explicit mandate assigned to the organization by Parliament against potential political interference.”

[Dennis Duggan]

As I mentioned, that's not my area of expertise, but I'm not aware of anything.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We're sort of straying a bit from the clause and the amendment we're dealing with here.

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

No, it's actually speaking quite explicitly to public policy as it has existed in—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

But explain how it relates directly to the amendment.

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

Another question I would have is on the policy rationale behind the provision in Bill C-60 allowing Treasury Board personnel to attend all the meetings between a crown corporation and the bargaining agent during collective bargaining. From your perspective, what is the policy rationale for this change?

[Dennis Duggan]

The policy rationale?

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

For Treasury Board officials to participate in or to attend all these meetings between the crown corporation and the bargaining agent during collective bargaining?

[Dennis Duggan]

That would fit with the notion of gaining a measure of oversight over what happens in bargaining between the corporation and its bargaining agents, in line with the notion of having a strategic approach to compensation management and the expenditure aspects of it.

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

Are you aware of this having been an issue prior to this change? Is this lack of Treasury Board participation something that has caused significant labour unrest in these negotiations previously?

[Dennis Duggan]

I don't think it's a question of whether there was labour unrest or not. It is an issue with respect to having a strategic approach to compensation management at a broad level, of course, and dealing with the expenditure and financial viability of organizations, particularly as it relates to pension liabilities, for example.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. We can come back to you, Mr. Brison, but I do have a long list here.

I have Mr. Côté, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Caron, Ms. Nash, Mr. Jean.

Monsieur Côté.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Unfortunately, I feel bad for my colleague Mark Adler, but I have no faith in his ability to figure out the truth. I must, however, thank him publicly because his questions about Mr. Moffatt's political affiliation provided a key moment that I listened to again. To be honest, it still makes me laugh and that really calms me down.

I am going to introduce my comments with the old adage, once a thief, always a thief. By moving what we can call an intervention boundary of the government and, more specifically, of the Treasury Board into the negotiating realm, the government is clearly establishing a regime or, rather, expanding its territory. It's an additional step that could go much further than simple involvement in negotiating mandates. Keep in mind that our witnesses were very clear on that point and expressed their concerns to us.

There was much discussion about CBC, where we learned that outright interference in programming, as well as journalistic mandates and work were possible.

In light of the type of confusion that can exist in the Senate and in the Prime Minister's office, we've seen mistakes that are extremely troubling. At that point, what's preventing the government from going outside the simple realm of negotiating to get directly involved or clearly overstep the boundaries to meddle in other areas? Unfortunately, the government has never been able to come up with a satisfactory answer to that question.

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Let's ensure that our comments are directly related to either the amendment or the clause in question.

Let us hear Mr. Rankin, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

My concerns relate to the comments of Mr. Adler, who said there wasn't a scintilla of truth in what Ms. Nash said about the failure of this to affect the independence of crown corporations.

The Bank of Canada is one of the crown corporations that will be affected by this proposed amendment. It is a cornerstone of Canada's economic system. It troubles me greatly that we have seen no analysis of what the implications would be for such a fundamental change.

Another crown corporation that people in my riding of Victoria care very deeply about is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Friends of Canadian Broadcasting have had debates. We've had large meetings. The second highest number of letters I've received since becoming a member, after the botch-up of the temporary foreign worker program, has been related to this change. The potential for impact upon the independence of journalism, of journalists, and the CBC is very much a matter for concern.

Mr. Adler said there would be no impact economically. He was talking about their respect for taxpayers' dollars. Let's just talk about the fact that the expert for management, Professor Smith, and Mr. Georgetti, the well-respected Canadian Labour Congress president, testified as to the enormous impact this will have upon the cost of running collective bargaining in this country for all the crown corporations. And let's talk about the legal challenges, which are all but inevitable, and the costs, in those challenges, to defend the indefensible.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Caron.

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

I have a few things to say about Mr. Adler's comments, among other things.

If Mr. Adler had been a witness, I don't think he would have been very convincing. What he is basically saying is that we are wrong and they are right. He has no argument. In fact, the government has not provided a single witness who supported what he said about there being no interference or about not calling into question of the independence of Crown corporations, particularly the CBC.

My colleague also spoke about the Bank of Canada. We requested that a specific study be done on the Bank of Canada, and the principle of independence is recognized in this House and by this government.

Be it the testimony of George Smith or, in the case of the CBC, the testimony of Florian Sauvageau, who is a prominent figure in Canada and internationally on the role of public broadcaster, it is clear that the concerns we have expressed repeatedly are founded. The fact that the government refuses to take them into account shows an indifference, perhaps not criminal, but misguided and extremely damaging to the principles of good governance once again.

Mr. Adler told us that the Government of Quebec already has a process to establish negotiating mandates. Yet, the Government of Quebec requires only one of its treasury board employees to be on the bargaining committee. It is completely different. With respect to bargaining, Quebec does not have a public broadcaster equipped with a news service that must have independence. That's another difference.

First of all, the comments from Conservative members of this committee are like comparing apples and oranges. Then, if the government was so sure that there was no threat to the independence of Crown corporations, particularly the Bank of Canada and the CBC, it could have brought in at least one witness, other than the Minister of Finance, who would have confirmed it. The people on the other side of the table are not very receptive to what union representatives say, but George Smith and Florian Sauvageau are not unionists; they are recognized in their field. They clearly said that the worries, the concerns were founded.

The amendments we are proposing are clearly relevant. We hope the government will take them into account. Otherwise, I can guarantee you that there will be serious problems. In fact, the viability of the information services of the CBC, as an independent entity, and the viability of the Bank of Canada's research and independent policies will be challenged.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be very brief, but I have a lot of confidence in Mr. Adler. I would suggest that I listen to unions as well, because I represent more union members, I think, than probably everyone else at the table combined—in Fort McMurray, something I'm proud to say. They elect me with about 72% plurality, so I do listen to unions.

In this particular case, I would suggest that it comes down to management style. We saw the management style.... Mr. Brison asked what has happened. Two things have happened—really, four things. One is a global economic crisis because of which people are watching their pocketbooks now and are worried about debt. They're concerned about that particular issue, especially their own bank accounts.

The other three things are the elections in 2006, 2008, and 2011, which said that the people of Canada don't like the management style of the Liberals—or, apparently, the NDP, since they're taking the same position—and they like the management style of the Conservative Party, because they know that the Conservatives will take care of and protect taxpayers' money.

It makes a lot of sense to have a mechanism in place to intervene, if it becomes abundantly clear that the terms are unreasonable. It frankly makes sense to me in any context, because the money we're talking about and that they want to spend is a huge percentage of the budget, first of all. Second, it is Canadian taxpayers' money, which should be treated with pristine, serious accounting rules to make sure that the money is not spent unreasonably.

I think that mechanism is abundantly clear, and our management style on that is going to be supported in the next election by Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I will move to the vote on amendment NDP-24.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I shall put the question on amendment NDP-25.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Brison, did you want to speak to amendment LIB-7? Did you want to move to the vote on it?

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

We heard from the president of CBC, we heard from friends of public broadcasting. There's a great deal of concern regarding the broadcasting independence of CBC and, more broadly, the principle of public broadcasting.

We feel quite strongly that the direction of the government is wrong-headed, and this amendment seeks to address it.