Human Resources committee  Yes.

Human Resources committee  Yes, we'd certainly welcome the discussion. We'd have to look at what it says, but on principle, yes.

Human Resources committee  If it's a question about red tape and you're asking us whether we like it, then the answer is probably that we don't like it very much. But I recall that, especially at the previous hearings on the bills, many of the union witnesses were making a curious argument, which was that this was very onerous and that there was a lot of red tape involved, but at the same time that they already provide this information to their members.

Human Resources committee  I would simply say that aggregate is certainly better than nothing.

Human Resources committee  I'd say a couple of things. One is that we don't need to accept that this bill is perfect in order to say that maybe the best thing isn't to throw the whole thing out. I would agree that the bill isn't perfect, as I did when I spoke to it when it came before the Senate committee with the previous government.

Human Resources committee  Do you mean because of the measures relating to the Income Tax Act?

Human Resources committee  Okay, I'm a little confused about the distinction here. My point is that an organization that is more concerned about privacy, for whatever reason, has the right to forgo the benefits that can flow to them under the Income Tax Act. We are one such group. We have supporters who work for unions, who work in the public sector, who may worry that their employer might find out that they contribute to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, so we protect their identity.

Human Resources committee  Thank you. That's not the part of the bill we were here to talk about, but I'm happy to comment. I do think when we talk about transparency there's obviously a competing interest here. There's the issue of privacy, and the reason there's a tension between these two things is because they are both important, and it is difficult sometimes to offer one and the other.

Human Resources committee  Good afternoon. My name is Aaron Wudrick and I am the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I want to thank the committee for the invitation today. I will be limiting my remarks to the provisions of the bill that relate to the rescinding of certain sections of the Income Tax Act as they apply to unions.

Information & Ethics committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think those are fair concerns. We don't take the position that every single piece of information inside the government needs to be disclosed. I think Mr. Bratina touched on this. There's a natural tension between privacy and accountability. I think the nature of public officials and of government is such that it has to be tilted more towards accountability than privacy, for the simple reason that government has power that no private citizen has.

Information & Ethics committee  I think Mr. Ring and Mr. Murray's comments are germane here. The bigger the jurisdiction, the harder it is for one office to do two things. We think keeping these offices separate just in terms of resources might be a wise idea.

Information & Ethics committee  I think my sentiments are similar to Mr. Holman's. The sentiment is clear. The problem is that these coordinators do not have sufficient independence. I think that the professor's recommendation is an attempt to find an alternative solution to that. The question, then, turns on whether you think a coordinator is more independent when they report to a mandarin or when they depend on an appointment, which, at the end of the day, could be traced to political motives.

Information & Ethics committee  I think perhaps we are overestimating the demand amongst foreigners for filing Canadian ATIPs, but the principle is simply that Canadians are the ones who are taxpayers. Accountability and transparency are triggered by the fact that they are the ones paying for it, so it would seem logical to us that they would have first priority.

Information & Ethics committee  No, we would agree. One of our concerns is that there's no point in having a prescribed timeline if there's no consequence for not meeting it. For any rule that is broken, if there's no punishment and if there's no consequence, then there's no incentive to respect the rule. We understand there's going to be instances where there's a lot of information being requested.

Information & Ethics committee  I think one of the merits of an order-making system is maybe not even the exercise of the power itself, but the threat of being able to use it. Bodies that are now taking their sweet time, and perhaps withholding information they shouldn't, if they knew there was an order-making power standing over them that would order them to do it anyway, perhaps they wouldn't be so reluctant to do it.