Tom Clark:
Hello from the nation’s capital and welcome to The West Block for this Sunday, December 11th. I’m Tom Clark.
Well, on the show today, we are talking severance pay. The name implies that you get it when you leave work, you’re fired or you’re laid off, but thousands of people receive the payout and were back on the job the very next day, and you paid for it.
The debate over what went wrong in Attawapiskat continues to heat up. Were federal funds mismanaged, and if so, by whom. If not, then what’s next? Is civil unrest on the horizon?
And he was the father of confederation and a strong opponent of closer ties with the US, Sir John A. Macdonald. What would he think of the new perimeter security deal? We’ll find out.
Well, as the government looks to find billions of dollars in savings, it quietly settled contracts with the largest public service union, agreeing to pay severance for members who are not losing their jobs. Why? Well, here’s your weekly West Block Primer…
Primer:
There’s no good time to lose your job, but if you do, there’s a pretty good chance that you’ll get severance pay. It’s never a lot; a few days pay for every year worked, but it helps the painful transition.
- Ottawa’s gun buyback pilot was ‘successful,’ destroyed 25 guns: minister
- Canadian government mulls response to X’s AI-generated sexual abuse material
- Carney to meet with Coastal First Nations on major projects, conservation
- Death toll in crackdown on protests in Iran spikes to at least 538, activists say
There is an alternate universe however, where severance pay arrives in your pocket without you losing your job. That universe is called the Federal Civil Service. Here’s what happened: for decades, the public service unions had a clause in their contract that gave them severance not only if they were laid off, but also if they quit, or if they retired. The government has now taken that off the table but compensated union members by paying them severance now as if they had already lost their jobs, but of course they hadn’t, and that all cost about $1.3 billion dollars. Members got the cash and returned to work the very next day.
People talking on the street:
Man: It’s another example of wasteful government spending, is it not?
Woman: I’ve worked with the public service for 30 years and I guess I feel I’m deserving of it.
Man: I don’t like the idea of paying somebody a lump sum under the guise of their leaving and then they stay on and continue their work.
Tom Clark:
Now, if a civil servant does get laid off, don’t worry, he or she will get another severance payment; this time, for actually losing the job.
Well joining us here in Ottawa to talk about this, Patty Ducharme, the vice president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Thank you both very much for being here.
Patty, let me start with you. $1.3 billion dollars, that’s really just the start because crown corporations are also going to be getting this payout, so it’s going to be a lot bigger than $1.3 billion. I mean outfits like the CBC, but let’s talk about your chunk of that, which is about 1.3. What did the taxpayers get for $1.3 billion dollars?
Patty Ducharme:
Well, I think it’s really important that taxpayers understand that this was a benefit that actually pre-dated collective bargaining. It’s a benefit that was in the first collective agreements that we signed with the Treasury Board as a union and it’s a benefit that has been agreed to, renewed by government after government; successive governments. And quite frankly, it was there to attract and retain good public sector workers.
Tom Clark:
But it was called severance and you got it if you quit or your retired, right?
Patty Ducharme:
Absolutely.
Tom Clark:
Okay, I want to go to one thing that Tony Clement, the president of the Treasury Board said about this, in response to questions, he said in part this, he said, “This is a one time ask in order to cash out existing accumulated severance.” So one might ask then, does this reset the clock? Is everybody back at zero in the public service in terms of severance?
Patty Ducharme:
Ah, no. There were three national bargaining units that accepted collective agreements that provided for the payout of accrued severance to date. In exchange, the employer no longer will be paying severance for voluntary departure to those national bargaining units.
Tom Clark:
Let me take it over to Dan Kelly. So Patty’s point in essence is that this was always a way to attract people to the public service, that they needed it. They called it severance. It really wasn’t severance, but it’s been there for a long time. Is that a valid point?
Dan Kelly:
I don’t know. I mean, when you think about severance you think about if somebody gets laid off, somebody loses their job involuntarily then it makes complete sense in the private or the public sector that we pay them out to give them some benefits to help them in the transition. But if you’re not losing your job, it seems absolutely crazy to taxpayers to be shelling out $1.3 billion dollars in a tough economy to people that are essentially keeping their jobs. And we have to remember, back in the day, the civil servants had lower…you know, back when these collective agreements were signed they had lower salaries than the private sector, but you had a good pension and you also had pretty much…you had job security. Today, public sector salaries are actually higher than the private sector, on average
Patty Ducharme:
That’s arguable.
Dan Kelly:
…about 40 percent more than similar occupations in the private sector and they have the best pensions available. So you know, severance is a really, really tough issue for taxpayers to swallow because when you leave the public sector, when you retire, you have one of the best pensions out there and we’re giving you 30-50 grand as a present.
Patty Ducharme:
Tom, I have to say that what Dan has said about public sector salaries is somewhat misleading. I think it would depend on whose pay compensation studies you’re looking at in order to determine whether public sector workers are actually overpaid. If you look at the Government of Canada’s own pay studies, what you’ll see is, our members, Public Service Alliance of Canada members are either paid at market or below market rates.
Tom Clark:
So are you arguing Patty that you still need some form of extra compensation and you no longer have this severance, which isn’t severance, in there, but do you still need that money to attract people who would otherwise go to the private sector? Is that what you’re saying?
Patty Ducharme:
Well, I would certainly say Tom, that public sector workers are a huge commodity here in Canada, and in fact, if I could just, I’m going to read you a quote from Andrew Saxton, the parliamentary secretary for Treasury Board. He made this comment last week in a presentation. He said, “We are fortunate in this country. Our federal public sector employees are among the best and the brightest and their work is tied to the wellbeing of our country. In turn, the public sector offers men and women competitive salaries.” And that is what public sector workers deserve and should continue to have.
Dan Kelly:
Look, we don’t debate that there are some good people working in the public service, but my goodness, there’s a lot of good people working in the private sector too that are struggling in a tough economy that have lost their jobs involuntarily in many instances, and the public sector has been immune from all of these pressures. And has better salaries, locked in job security. We believe absolutely that if you lose your job you should get a severance payment, but to actually get a severance payment when you’re not losing your job is crazy. When the government took over…when the federal government took over the managing of the GST, the HST in Ontario, all of the people that worked for the tax department in Ontario transitioned into government jobs. They got a severance payment from the Government of Ontario and then had a guaranteed job locked in the very next day. That’s the part that I don’t think passes the smell test for Canadians. Look, the governments in a rock and a hard place. The real secret to this is to not negotiate these sweetheart deals in the first place, to actually have deals that mean something and then not box yourself in with these giant pay outs in a bad economy.
Get daily National news
Patty Ducharme:
And I’d say that a collective agreement is certainly not a sweetheart deal. It’s a binding legal instrument. Successive Canadian governments have signed collective agreements with my union and others and quite frankly, those benefits remain on the books for many of our bargaining units, and we will continue to negotiate for those members.
Dan Kelly:
I don’t blame public service for taking the money. I blame governments from rolling over and allowing public sector unions to just steamroll their way with these crazy high agreements.
Tom Clark:
But Patty let me ask you this, because a lot of Canadians will be listening to this and saying, okay, you may have a point but nevertheless, this phony severance pay is something that most Canadians don’t get. Most Canadians in fact don’t even have pension, so at a time when you’re trying to fight against future cuts in the public service, aren’t you disconnected from the average Canadian, if you’re going out for public support to support your position, but here you are defending, saying well we want severance when we don’t fired and we want severance when we do get fired as well?
Patty Ducharme:
Well, I certainly am out talking to Canadians, our members and the broader Canadian public and what I keep hearing from Canadians is they want and need public services. They rely on public services each and every day. They want access to EI benefits. They want access to their veterans’ benefits. They want to know that their food is safe.
Tom Clark:
But what’s that got to do with the phony severance package?
Patty Ducharme:
Well, it’s interesting isn’t it? You want good quality people in these jobs, and we are going to continue to deliver those services. Our members will continue to deliver those services for Canadians and government will continue to negotiate with the unions that represent those workers.
Tom Clark:
Dan, last 15 seconds to you.
Dan Kelly:
Well, I was going to say that small businesses across this country are struggling to hang on to their staff. Their biggest competition is government jobs. They can’t compete to offer giant pensions. They can’t compete to offer higher salaries that exist in the public service so we need to….look, all we’re looking for is some balance and this doesn’t pass the test.
Tom Clark:
Dan Kelly, Canadian Federation of Independent Business and Patty Ducharme, vice president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, thank you both very much for being here. Good discussion.
Well, we’re going to take a short break and when we come back, we’re going to be taking a look at what’s happening in Appiwapiskat. Is it a crisis that could potentially change everything that we do about dealing with our native population? That story right after this…
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back to The West Block. Well the debate over what’s happening in the remote Ontario reserve of Appiwapiskat continues to heat up. The government has ordered an audit of how the band spent federal funds and has put that community under third party management. The community is pushing back saying the real mismanagement is on the part of the government. Arguments on all sides have been passionate.
Within the House of Commons:
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, not only is the government already spending tens of millions of dollars in this particular community, it’s also spending additional monies on particular emergency needs because of mismanagement.
Bob Rae: When is this government going to take responsibility for its grotesque failure to apply the basic standards of accountability and responsibility to itself? That’s where the responsibility lies. That’s where the mismanagement lies Mr. Speaker.
Tom Clark:
Well joining us to discuss where things are going from here is Chris Warkentin who joins me here in studio, the Conservative MP for Peace River in Alberta and the chair of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. And also, in Toronto, Charlie Angus, the NDP MP who represents the community of Appiwapiskat in the House of Commons and one of the first MPs to bring this issue to light. And thank you both very much for joining us.
Chris, let me first start with you. As you heard the Prime Minister say he’s talking about financial mismanagement, says this is part of the problem, who exactly is mismanaging the money and when did you find out about it?
Chris Warkentin:
Well we’re going to get to the bottom of that. Obviously the minister has announced that there’s going to be an audit, not only of the community but also the department with regards to these issues, so we know that that’s going to be happening. But what’s most important right now is to ensure that people that are in the community that are most in need do have accommodations to the winter; temporary in the short term and then longer term accommodations…
Tom Clark:
Well, I understand that and the message is changing a little bit, but the Prime Minister clearly said that the issue is financial mismanagement. And I guess I get back to the question of when did you find out about this?
Chris Warkentin:
Well accountability is absolutely essential and there are concerns with regards to the management of funds. There has been over $90 million dollars that have flowed into the community over the last five years, not including this fiscal year. And clearly, the results for that money haven’t been that everybody has been helped so we do have concerns with regards to that and that’s exactly what the audit is going to find out.
Tom Clark:
So you’re assuming that this is going to be the result of the audit?
Chris Warkentin:
Well, no the audit is going to find out exactly why services that should have been given to every member of that community haven’t.
Tom Clark:
Let me go to Charlie Angus, and Charlie, let me sort of turn that question around to you. Are you saying that there is, or has been no financial mismanagement in Appiwapiskat?
Charlie Angus:
Well you know, it’s funny, on October 28th, three communities on the James Bay coast declared states of emergency; Kashetchewan, Fort Albany and Appiwapiskat. The Chiefs in the other communities decided actually to pull back their state of emergency even though they have people living in tents and shacks because they felt that Indian Affairs would never respond to the larger issue, and that maybe they would help Appiwapiskat. What we’ve seen is this, you know my colleague there, and we’re going to get to the bottom of it. I’ve been in these communities for the last seven years. I’ve seen the states of emergency. I’ve seen the government misrepresent the facts on the ground. I’ve seen the state of emergency where we had 100 people left homeless and the response from that government was telling people to live in tents. Well, guess what, two years later they’re still living in tents. We’ve been having a systemic problem in this community for a number of years, right across all our Northern James Bay communities, so now it’s come to the floor, and we’ve lost probably three weeks in this emergency while Mr. Harper led the campaign and blaming the community. The community has always said, if you want to come in and audit our books, come in any time. You want to audit them for the last five years, come in. but the reality here is we need help and we need some action.
Tom Clark:
Yeah, but let me ask you though directly, are you saying there has been no financial mismanagement in Appiwapiskat?
Charlie Angus:
What I’m saying is that when Mr. Harper got up and said he gave every man, woman and child $50 thousand dollars, he was lying. He didn’t give them $50 thousand dollars. He took what was spent over a five year period on a per capita basis, didn’t tell the Canadian public that or the fact that Appiwapiskat gets on a per capita basis is about half of what any other Canadian community gets.
Tom Clark:
Alright, but Charlie I’m not hearing a yes or no as to whether you think there’s been financial mismanagement. But let me take this…
Charlie Angus:
Okay, how about this? How about this? You know what, bring in the auditor. But why is it that four or five weeks into a crisis where I’ve got people living in sheds the only thing it seems the media really care about is what happened with the audits. The communities said again and again, come in and audit our books. Come in and audit our books. I don’t think it gets any clearer than that.
Visuals of houses
Chris Warkentin:
Yeah the auditor will be in there but Charlie misrepresents the facts when he says that the minister wasn’t’ active on this file. The moment that the Chief requested $500 thousand dollars in emergency funding to retrofit existing housing stock, the minister within 24 hours, within 24 hours had those funds available to the Chief in council. Unfortunately that was in early November. We weren’t seeing the action that we thought was necessary in terms of the retrofit…
Tom Clark:
But why was he only finding out about it then? This has been going on for years.
Chris Warkentin:
The request from the Chief and council came early November. The request came then. Within 24 hours, within 24 hours, the department had the money available to the community to retrofit existing housing stock to accommodate those folks. These are the most important things that people are well served. That’s why the government has put forward the action plan.
Tom Clark:
I want to throw something out…go ahead, go ahead Charlie.
Charlie Angus:
Well, I mean, to be fair, I was on the original conference call with Indian Affairs about that $500 thousand dollars and the regional department, I have no problem with the regional department did, but we were three weeks into that crisis and nobody had even bothered to show up in the community to assess the situation on the ground. That to me is gross incompetence. When you declare a state of emergency and nobody from the federal government even bothers to find out what’s happening? That speaks volumes to me of the systemic indifference.
Tom Clark:
I want to get…before we run out of time. I do want to address this though, that if we take a look at Appiwapiskat and other reserves around, you can conclude at least one thing, and that is, that whatever we have been doing for the past 50 or 100 years ain’t working. Because if this is the result that we wanted then it’s the wrong result no matter who is to blame on this. So Is it time to blow up the Indian Act? Is it time to change our entire approach to the way we deal with the native population in this country? And if so, is it time to think about radical solutions like relocation? Because, if we have remote reserves that don’t have a chance at ever becoming self-sustaining then why would we want to continue that?
Chris Warkentin:
Well we do have a whole gambit of different circumstances across this country and we actually do have remote communities in this country that are doing rather well. There’s increasing employment where there is opportunities for the community and where investment is coming into the community not only from the government but from industry partners as well. So those are the solutions but they’re looking at innovative ways to do that. You know you talk about the Indian Act; we believe that there are challenges within the act. We believe that there needs to be innovative solutions to that and that’s why we’re working with First Nations communities, provincial and territorial governments.
Tom Clark:
I want to get Charlie in on this. Charlie go ahead.
Charlie Angus:
Well the Indian Act is very problematic, but we always seem to look at the failures in Northern Canada. If you look on the James Bay coast on the Québec side, where the James Bay Cree fought for years to get part of the resource development so that they could be part of that economy, those communities are radically different than what’s happening in the James Bay Coast in Ontario. So the solution is, we have huge mining operations moving in, DeBeers, the Ring of Fire; let’s look at infrastructure development working in partnership with the mines. Let’s look at resources revenue sharing so communities have a stake in the development of their region so that they’re not just left on these little postage stamp sized communities. There are a number of things that can be done and I’m hoping that Appiwapiskat’s the moment where we say, yeah, let’s just stop with the status quo. Let’s look at what works and what doesn’t and I think we can actually afford out of this.
Tom Clark:
Charlie Angus, we’re out of time unfortunately. Chris Warkentin here in Ottawa and Charlie Angus joining us from Toronto. Thank you both very much. Great discussion.
After the break we pause to ask, what would Sir John A. do? Canada’s first prime minister and champion for a strong Canada on the perimeter security deal with the United States. That’s coming up next.
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back to The West Block. Well it’s been a very big week for Canada-US relations. Stephen Harper and Barack Obama announced the details of a new perimeter security agreement aimed at easing trade and increasing security.
In the past few days, we’ve been hearing analysis about the deal from a number of people but one person we haven’t heard from yet, the Father of Confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald and we’re joined by him now. Well, not exactly, but close. Richard Gwyn: political columnist and author. His most recent book, Nation Maker covers the life of Sir John A. Macdonald from Confederation to his death and Richard Gwyn joins us from Toronto. Richard good to have you here.
Richard Gwyn:
Thanks very much for inviting me.
Tom Clark:
What would Sir John A. think about this no deal with the US?
Richard Gwyn:
I think he would find it pretty ho hum. He would take about 15 seconds to figure out that the deal itself is no big deal. It doesn’t change that much of anything except we can now apparently say Peameal bacon, which is a very important change.
Tom Clark:
(Laughing)
Richard Gwyn:
Before, it was apparently illegal.
Tom Clark:
(Laughing) But the essence of Sir John A. and the reason we bring him into this discussion was because his whole political life at the beginning was making sure that Canada never became the United States. What would he see differently between 1967 and now?
Richard Gwyn:
The big difference that he would spot immediately if he were wandering about is Canadians are confident with themselves in the way they’ve really never been since Confederation; a hundred and whatever it is, 25 years ago. In fact, we’re almost cocky. We feel that the Americans are in deep trouble economically and politically and we’re not. There’s a sense of comfort. I think the Olympics in the Vancouver with the Own the Podium, which is so un-Canadian to say we’re going to win and then take the risks that we’ll be humiliated. That was un-Canadian but there’s a mood in this country of real confidence. So whatever this deal was, you’ve just referred to, doesn’t bother Canadians. We don’t feel we’re going to sell out. We don’t feel we’re all going to run across the border and get better jobs.
Tom Clark:
Well, and I just want to go back to Sir John A. for a second because one of the criticisms or fears about this deal was a certain loss of sovereignty in this country, giving it away to the Americans. And of course that was a primary focus of Sir John A’s life in politics when dealing with the United States. When you talk about confidence, a new confidence that we have, are you also saying that sovereignty as you see it, as Richard Gwyn sees it, is not an issue or not something we should be concerned about when you take a look at this beyond the borders deal?
Richard Gwyn:
You’re quite right. John A. Macdonald cared deeply about sovereignty and he fought very, very hard for it every now and then. He was adamant for instance, that the Transcontinental Railway, the Canadian Pacific, would not be secretly owned by the Americans and that was the deal which was going on at one time behind his back. Today, we can stand back and look at the Americans straight in the eye and be confident that we are not going to sell out and we’re not going to get in effect mugged or mugged ourselves by going too far, by giving away too much. This deal does not impinge any important sovereignty matters. By the way, it’s not even a treaty, therefore, it’s not in law, therefore it’s really just a deal between bureaucrats to try harder and do a bit better.
Tom Clark:
And to bring us full circle on this Richard, one might assume that Sir John A, having taking 15 seconds to say this deal is no big deal would have probably then poured himself a drink and forgot about it.
Richard Gwyn:
I think you’re probably right, particularly because this is the Christmas season. Otherwise, of course John A. was very strict in his drinking.
Tom Clark:
(Laughing) anyway, well listen, thank you so much for joining us. Richard Gwyn, his new book, Nation Maker is on the shelves now. Richard thanks very much.
Richard Gwyn:
Thanks very much Tom.
Tom Clark:
And that is The West Block for this week. Hope to see you here again next Sunday morning. Until then, I’m Tom Clark. Have a great week.
Comments