Bill C-377 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to require that labour organizations provide financial information to the Minister for public disclosure.

[Costa Dimitrakopoulos]

With Bill C-377, once it became law, it was the power of Parliament and the will of Parliament that that information be shared. The information that was requested of the CRA in terms of the employees of the CRA was not something that was the will of Parliament.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I'll get your comment or your opinion on this.

In 2012, the CRA was asked to provide the same information on its employees that Bill C-377would require of labour unions. The CRA's response was that they could not provide the information because the Privacy Act precludes the CRA from disclosing personal information about its employees.

Again—obviously, I wasn't in politics at that time—I found it hypocritical that the Conservative Party was asking unions to provide private information that their own agency, the CRA, refused to provide because of privacy concerns. I want to get your comments and opinion on that.

[Anthony Giles]

I won't comment on whether it's overburdensome, but it is clear that compared to the reporting requirements under the Canada Labour Code, which are to provide members with existing financial statements, that entails less effort on the part of a union than it would be to respect all of the reporting requirements that were adopted in Bill C-377.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I have one last question.

I refer to a document that we received from the Library of Parliament talking about Bill C-377, etc., which states, “Countries like the United States and Germany have had cases of union corruption. Disclosure schemes have led to the recovery of massive amounts of money, and forced individuals who had committed offences out of the offending unions.”

It seems to be a choice of choosing accountability to combat corruption or choosing corruption, or that's what seems to be the choice for me, so my question for you as minister is, if given the choice between accountability and corruption, what would be your choice?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Minister, the past two privacy commissioners raised serious concerns about the information that Bill C-377 requires. Mrs. Jennifer Stoddard said, “Requiring the names of all individuals earning or receiving more than $5,000, as well as the amounts they receive, to be published on a website, is a serious breach of privacy.” The current commissioner, Mr. Therrien, said that the bill goes too far.

The president of the Canadian Police Association, Tom Stamatakis, said that he was deeply concerned for his police officers and their safety, and security if this information was to be released.

Do you agree with the comments that were made, and do you have concerns about the amount of private information that would be revealed because of Bill C-377?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

By giving employers access to unions' financial information, including strike funds, without requiring employers to reciprocate, the reporting requirements included in Bill C-377 could upset the existing labour relations balance and disadvantage unions in the collective bargaining process.

If two parties are at the table, there are certain measures you wish to hold confidential if you're in a bargaining situation, and that includes how much you have in your strike fund, or how much you have in your replacement worker fund. This information is confidential. The bill would have made it not so, and therefore, significantly negatively impacted the unions in their ability to negotiate.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Speaking to my colleague on the other side, what concerns did you have that the reporting requirements found in Bill C-377 interfered with the internal operations of labour organizations or actually even forced unions to disclose information that would disadvantage them during collective bargaining?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Minister, was Bill C-377 a government bill or was it a private member's bill?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

This one is a registered charity information return from the Canada Revenue Agency. This is the standard non-profit return, which is still a bit heavy in the documentation. It would have fulfilled the requirements presented in Bill C-377.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Are you speaking hypothetically? Bill C-377 was given royal assent just before the last Parliament ended. Since it was given royal assent, has there been any annual reporting through it?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

This is a report form disclosure. It's called form LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report. In the U.S. the Screen Actors Guild has 237,000 members, and I'm informed that this was the model used for Bill C-377. This is a report that we would have seen coming in this year.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Madam Minister, for coming, and congratulations on moving so forcefully forward on Bill C-4.

In 2012, Mr. Cuzner, as labour critic, wrote to the Canada Revenue Agency and asked that they provide the same information on its employees that Bill C-377 would require of labour organizations. They said they could not provide the information because the Privacy Act precludes the CRA from disclosing personal information about its employees.

Do you find it strange that the Conservatives were asking unions to provide private information that their own agency, CRA, refused to provide because of privacy concerns? Could you elaborate on that? Thank you.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Minister, and congratulations on your appointment.

I want to give a big shout-out to communities right across Canada, trade unions, labour unions, and citizens groups who spoke out against the two bills we're talking about, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

Having come from the charitable sector and having experienced the previous government's sort of chill on the work we did, and of course the pieces under the guise of accountability around first nations, to me this is something along those lines that we need to repeal. We're on side, and I'm glad we're doing it. It's unfortunate we have to spend time going backwards to get where we were 10 years ago. However, I commend you on that.

You did bring up the Canada Labour Code, and I did want to take this opportunity to speak about that. We know the Canada Labour Code is about 60 years out of date. There was a review with some recommendations that were never implemented. I'm wondering if I could take this opportunity to ask the minister about a possible timeline or some idea for the committee about updating and modernizing the Canada Labour Code.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many supporters of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 have dismissed the criticism that they harm, not help, labour relations because they were done through private members' bills, outside the established tripartite process that has been followed for decades to make major amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

Could you explain to the committee the normal process to make major amendments and the importance of the process for stability in labour relations?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you for the question.

First, the key labour organizations, including the Canadian Labour Congress, criticized Bill C-377 on the basis that it would upset the existing labour relations balance between unions and employers by requiring unions to publicly disclose key financial information, including the strike fund, without requiring employers to reciprocate. Second, it creates unnecessary and redundant financial disclosure obligations, since union financial disclosure is already addressed in the Canada Labour Code and in many provincial labour statutes. Third, the bill is biased against unions and ignores other types of organizations, such as professional associations, which also receive favourable treatment under tax law. Finally, the bill invades the privacy of labour organizations and their members.

Several labour organizations indicated their intention to challenge the provisions enacted by Bill C-377 on constitutional grounds. The Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, AUPE, has launched a constitutional challenge to Bill C-377, which is before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. Due to the government's stated intention to repeal the Income Tax Act provisions enacted by the bill, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees has agreed to adjourn the application without any further dates for hearings being set.

The Canadian Bar Association, not normally known to be particularly heavily unionized, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner raised concerns that Bill C-377 could breach individual privacy rights. The Bar Association suggested the bill may be subject to legal challenges on these grounds. Many provinces—Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and P.E.I.—allege that Bill C-377 was potentially unconstitutional by encroaching upon provincial jurisdiction over labour issues. British Columbia did support the bill.

Some business organizations, such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and Merit Canada, did express support for Bill C-377. Market-orientated think tanks like the Fraser Institute and the Montreal Economic Institute had previously expressed support for expanding statutory union financial disclosure requirements.