Finance Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

The reason I'm curious about this is that the people who advocate deficits all the time are also the same people who claim with hand on heart that they're so concerned about the gap between rich and poor. However, they don't seem at all concerned about taking tax dollars from working-class and poor people and giving them to wealthy people in the form of higher interest on national debt. Does this strike you as at all ironic?

[Dr. Ian Lee]

I see where you're going. That isn't my concern, if you're asking me that. I have different intellectual or analytical concerns. Those wealthy corporations or individuals have to, of course, pay taxes, file annual tax returns. They pay personal income taxes or corporate income taxes on those revenues or on their net taxable income, so it does come back in the circular flow.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Those people who are worried about social justice and the separation between rich and poor ought to start thinking about why we force the working poor, the working class, to give of their money so that extremely wealthy people can get guaranteed returns on their investment in the Government of Canada.

[Dr. Ian Lee]

If we're having a back-and-forth conversation, I understand your point, but that wouldn't be my principal argument. My principal argument is that when times get tough and we have to make adjustments—like the fiscal interventions, as I call the 1995 Chrétien decision, which I strongly supported, or the monetary interventions of the early 1980s by Paul Volcker and by the Bank of Canada—it falls disproportionately on low-income people and minorities. They're the ones who pay the burden of the adjustment, because they have fewer resources, less wealth and less resilience.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Right.

[Dr. Ian Lee]

They are the people who pay the price.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

In the lead-up to that crisis, working-class people are shovelling more and more money to the wealthy who can afford government bonds. When the crisis actually hits, then again, those working-class and poor people are the people who suffer the most as a result of the adjustments that are needed to save the country from bankruptcy.

[Dr. Ian Lee]

That's because of the adjustments, cutbacks in programs, layoffs of people who are employed, that sort of thing. That's where the adjustment falls.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

In light of these facts, maybe it's time we look upon—with a little more suspicion—those people who tell us that they are concerned about income inequality and poverty, and propose as their solution to it borrowing more money from wealthy corporations and powerful individuals.

[Dr. Ian Lee]

Again, I see your point, and to continue this quick back and forth, I was trying to impress today on the parliamentarians here—every one of you—that this is not just a theoretical debate. It's going to fall on your desk on the day that one of those provinces contacts the Government of Canada for financial assistance because they are no longer able to pay their bills as they become due. It will probably be health care bills, because they are about 50% of provincial spending in every provincial jurisdiction.

It's not going to be theoretical. It's going to fall on the desk of every member of Parliament and senator when that day arrives, and it's not in 50 or 100 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

As the witnesses can see, we have some wide-ranging discussions in this committee from time to time, but that was a good one as well.

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome everyone.

Looking at the BIA legislation, we've heard some really good commentary on the changes to the Labour Code. This is the first time in a generation, or maybe two generations actually, that a government has made substantive and, what I would call, well-needed changes to the Labour Code.

However, as Mr. Hynes commented, we need to be careful, because we need to ensure competitiveness of our industries, whether they are federally regulated rail carriers or telecoms or banks. We also need to be fiscally prudent, because the folks working for the federal government are paid by an individual called the taxpayer. We need to be prudent about that.

I believe we struck a good balance on those measures. You can haggle about some of the details or measures, but I think, all in all, we have struck a really good balance, and we need to be proud of that.

I want to turn to the Teamsters.

There is an issue that I have spoken to you about—Unifor, as well—on contract flipping, contract retendering, which is basically outlawed in the U.K. and in several jurisdictions.

What else is needed in this legislation to make sure we are not be in a situation where workers' rights are basically stripped away?

[Phil Benson]

The first comment is that to be very clear, part III of the Labour Code will not affect FETCO too much. Most of the large federal employers are unionized, and part III of the Labour Code deals with bedrock, base-level, non-union workers.

There are provisions in the code...and we welcome the changes. Funnily enough, I happened to work during the Arthurs commission to look at that. It's long overdue, and we thank the government for bringing them.

The contract flipping issue will be in part I of the Labour Code amendment. It is sorely needed. It disrupts life. It makes business less efficient. It's not really appropriate.

The one I would want to turn to in making things better would be the scheduling issue. Scheduling affects transportation workers. They are the people who drive trains, buses, the pilots. They are the people who move the stuff.

Because of a subrogation agreement with Labour Canada, Transport Canada sets those hours. So notwithstanding the clause that says this doesn't apply to collective agreements, it wouldn't apply anyway.

When I talk about fatigue, the major issue is this. We know from science that the workers who work these hours have cognitive damage, disease, social consequences. Transport Canada can't look at that, because their mandate is an efficient system and public safety for companies.

This is something that has to be fixed.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you. I do want to move on, because there are other folks I'd like to get to.

One of my siblings is a member of the UFCW and has been a member of the union for a long time, I think over 30 or 35 years. The industry has changed. The grocery industry, if I can speak to that, has drastically changed in Canada. We've led on the federal side with legislation on changes to the Canada Labour Code.

Unfortunately, in the province of Ontario, Premier Ford has basically come in and stripped away the rights that workers earned and deserved in the last changes he made in his government. It's really unfortunate to see. I do need to make that point, because it's really taking workers' rights back in time, not forward, which we should be doing. That's the way we should build Canada, not in the way his government is doing.

I will turn to Mr. Lee.

Ian, I've always enjoyed your presentations here at committee. I've been on the committee since the beginning of our government. You know, we live in a really wonderful world. We have the best of all worlds, and sometimes the worst of all worlds. Global poverty is at record lows. Poverty in Canada has been trending down since the 1960s with the introduction of old age security, health care and GIS. We brought in the Canada child benefit. We've done a lot of measures, including a 10% increase in the GIS.

On trade, I agree with Mr. Poilievre to a certain extent. Trade tends to lift all boats. There are some losers, but it has reduced global poverty to what I would say are continuing lower levels.

What do you think of our government's trade agenda? Then we'll move on to the debt and deficit numbers afterwards.

[Dr. Ian Lee]

I've strongly endorsed it. You know, you've closed the deal on CETA. It was negotiated by the Conservatives, but you closed it. That's an extremely important deal, with 500 million high-income consumers. There are those in unions who say we shouldn't be negotiating with middle-income or low-income countries, to use the World Bank typology, so that was an important step forward.

The TPP was an important step forward because over half of the world is Asia-Pacific now in terms of GDP and opportunities. The new NAFTA, as I like to call it—the acronym is just too difficult for my old brain to remember, so I'll call it the new NAFTA—is yet to be determined. We don't even know what the new Congress is going to do. I do think it's a fifty-fifty proposition at best, so we won't.... Maybe in a month from now the new Congress will have defeated it because the Democrats want to poke Mr. Trump in the eye. We don't yet know, because there has not been comment specifically and concretely on that, so it's yet to be determined. It might turn out to be a blessing in disguise if they repudiate it, because then we can get the tariffs off.

To answer your question directly, my one criticism is the fact that the tariffs are still on. Tariffs, to anyone who looks at trade, are absolutely pernicious, destructive and negative. I don't see any justification whatsoever for tariffs. The whole point of GATT, at the end of the Second World War was to get rid of tariffs, and then they continued under WTO. Yet here we are, 70 years later, still talking about tariffs, which we all know—every economist knows—don't do anything good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You'll have to end it there, Mr. Lee and Mr. Sorbara.

Three minutes for Mr. Julian, and then we'll have a quick question from Mr. McLeod.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to get back to the amendments. Ms. Rudd, my colleague, made an intervention that was simply not correct.

In seven days to the hour, all of the amendments need to be in, submitted through an opposition party or if the government accepts any amendments to submit themselves. They're not actually obliged to adopt those amendments, but it's seven days to the hour.

We have a statutory holiday next Monday. It takes two to three days to do the translation and to finalize those amendments, so we're really talking about hearing back from you by tomorrow afternoon. That's the reality around the process that it takes for amendments.

For the government to pretend that there's all this time is simply false. They rammed this legislation through. They put the handcuffs on consideration of this bill.

I'm going to leave you with my home phone number, because I'm leaving for British Columbia tonight. It's 604-521-2171. Phone me anytime this weekend. We will be endeavouring to put these amendments in. We are hoping the government actually turns away from the cliff, allows amendments to pay equity, allows amendments around banking and consumer protection, and allows consideration of the important message that you have delivered about this bill and the flaws that must be corrected.

Please contact my office, because we want to work with you and with so many of the other witnesses who have come forward with very valuable proposals for amendments that will make a difference in the legislation. This is badly flawed legislation being rammed through the House in a way that even Stephen Harper never tried to do. It is beyond me that a prime minister who promised to bring an end to these undemocratic practices is accelerating, amplifying and doing even worse than what the previous government did.

Now, it's not just amendments that need to be considered. We can choose to delete clauses, and I want to come back again to Monsieur Lacoste and Mr. Hennessy. Proposed clause 181 of the pay equity act is basically the scissors clause. It would allow the current government, or any future government, to cut out whole sectors. The minister could decide, just on fiat, to exempt the entire banking sector from any provision of the pay equity act, to basically exclude women working in that sector from pay equity.

Would you recommend to this committee that the scissors clause, which would allow the minister in this government or any future government to exempt whole sectors, whole industries, be cut out of this legislation? Would you recommend that be deleted?

[Mark Hennessy]

UFCW Canada would recommend that it be deleted.

[Stéphane Lacoste]

It is the same thing for us, of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

You can have one very quick question, Ms. Rudd, because we do have a 10:45 hard stop.

[Kim Rudd]

Thank you.

My question is to Mr. Allen and Ms. Passmore. Earlier this week we had the minister in to talk about the BIA and some of the elements within it that we've talked about today. I come from a rural riding where over 40% of my population is over the age of 55. The measures around the consumer protection framework, particularly with regard to banking and especially in small towns where the banks are closing thereby causing complications for banking, seniors in particular find stressful.

Do you have any information or comments on this particular element as it relates to seniors?

[Marian Passmore]

I would say that older Canadians can be vulnerable consumers, and strictly relying on disclosure and consent as a way to protect those consumers would not, given the complexity of a lot of financial products, be adequate. Therefore, the appropriate standard is a step in the right direction. I would also add that banks can play a very important role in recognizing loss of capacity and potential elder financial abuse issues. FAIR Canada has co-authored a report with the Canadian Centre for Elder Law on vulnerable investors. We made six practical recommendations including amending the privacy legislation federally to permit workers, employees and different staff at banks to play a positive role in dealing with that problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, with that we will have to conclude.

I want to thank each and every one of you for coming forward to make your presentation and answer our questions.

The meeting is adjourned.