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.

Bill C-377—Income Tax Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 22, 2012 by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie regarding the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations), standing in the name of the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

I would like to thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for having raised the matter; as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; the hon. House leader of the official opposition; and the members for Saint-Lambert, Cape Breton—Canso and South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale for their interventions.

In raising this matter, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie explained that the provisions of clause 1 of the bill would result in expenditures of public funds in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized. Specifically, he claimed that a new entity within the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, would have to be created to administer and enforce the provisions contained in the bill, and that there would be costs incurred in setting up a new computer system to meet the requirements of the legislation. These, he concluded, would constitute “new and distinct” costs, thereby creating a need for a royal recommendation.

Similarly, the member for Cape Breton—Canso argued that the bill envisioned a new function and purpose within the CRA and as such the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation that authorizes the agency's current spending would be altered. He also suggested that Bill C-377 would regulate the internal affairs of unions and the relationships with their members, thus giving the CRA a new labour relations function.

For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rejected these arguments, claiming instead that the authority to spend for the purposes set out in the bill would fall under the general authority of existing broader provisions of the Income Tax Act, as well as the agency's general authorities under the Canada Revenue Agency Act. He illustrated this by referring to those portions of the Income Tax Act dealing with reporting requirements for charity organizations. He also stated that, should additional funds be required, the government would seek them from Parliament through an appropriation bill covering operating expenses.

The question before us is whether the implementation of Bill C-377 would constitute a new appropriation requiring a royal recommendation, or whether the costs would be administrative in nature and would fall under the ongoing mandate of the Canada Revenue Agency.

I would like to remind the House of the conditions under which a royal recommendation is required. As the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie noted in his presentation, bills which authorize new charges for purposes not anticipated in the estimates require royal recommendations. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 833 further states:

The charge imposed by the legislation must be “new and distinct”; in other words, not covered elsewhere by some more general authorization.

The Canada Revenue Agency already has the mandate to administer various tax and benefits regimes and to manage a broad range of other programs and activities. More specifically, section 5 of the Canada Revenue Agency Act mandates the agency to support the administration and enforcement of program legislation. Furthermore, in reviewing the documentation provided by the member for Saint-Lambert, which makes reference to specific cost information provided by the CRA in response to questions from the Standing Committee on Finance, the Chair notes the references made to section 220 of the Income Tax Act, which states:

(1) The Minister shall administer and enforce this Act and the Commissioner of Revenue may exercise all the powers and perform the duties of the Minister under this Act.

(2) Such officers, clerks and employees as are necessary to administer and enforce this Act shall be appointed or employed in the manner authorized by law.

In carefully reviewing this matter, it seems to the Chair that the provisions of the bill, namely the requirements for the agency to administer new filing requirements for labour organizations and making information available to the public, may result in an increased workload or operating costs but do not require spending for a new function per se. In other words, the agency, as part of its ongoing mandate, already administers filing requirements and makes information available to the public. The requirements contained in Bill C-377 can thus be said to fall within the existing spending authorization of the agency.

In a ruling given by Speaker Milliken on February 23, 2007, which can be found at page 7261 of Debates, he stated, in relation to the then Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts), that:

Bill C-327 may or may not result in a greater workload for the CRTC, but the activities being proposed are within its mandate. If additional staff or resources are required to perform these activities then they would be brought forward in a separate appropriation bill for Parliament’s consideration.

It appears to the Chair that a similar situation would arise should Bill C-377 be enacted and, thus, that this particular ruling is directly relevant and applicable to the current circumstance.

A second ruling by Speaker Milliken, this one on December 3, 2010, Debates page 6803, in reference to then Bill C-568, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (mandatory long-form census), is also helpful. In that ruling it was apparent to the Speaker that the proposed legislation was not adding to or expanding upon the existing mandate of Statistics Canada and, thus, that the bill in question did not require a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, the Chair rules that Bill C-377 in its current form does not require a royal recommendation to proceed through the next stages of the legislative process.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Bill C-377—Income Tax Act

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, further to my point of order on Wednesday regarding Bill C-377, I would like to include another document for consideration, in addition to the ones I mentioned before.

There is a letter from the building trades and construction trades. If I could include this and two other documents, I will forward this to your office.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie suggested in his point of order that my private member's bill, Bill C-377, requires a royal recommendation before it can proceed to a third reading vote. The basis for his point of order is that the bill would impose additional spending obligations on the Canada Revenue Agency in order for it to implement my bill's requirements that labour organizations disclose financial information to the agency.

O'Brien and Bosc, at page 833, note that there are two types of bills that require a royal recommendation. The first is an appropriation act, or supply bill, which involves the expenditure of funds from the consolidated revenue fund. The second is a bill that imposes new charges for purposes not anticipated in the estimates. Under this category of bill the charges imposed by legislation are “new and distinct” and are not covered elsewhere.

It is clear from an examination of my bill that Bill C-377 does not seek funds from the public purse, nor is the bill a taxation measure. Bill C-377 can be properly characterized as a bill that would require the Canada Revenue Agency to establish some administrative procedures for the receiving of financial disclosures from labour organizations and to make these materials available to the public.

The costs that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie quoted as an estimate from the Canada Revenue Agency will not be accurate, should the amendments that I will table today in the House be adopted. In particular, my amendments would remove the requirement for cross-referencing, which is apparently a significant cost when managing databases, and it will require that all filings be electronic. Electronic reporting means no paper and therefore no need to transcribe data manually, which should ensure minimum costs in collecting and posting data. It may be argued that at most, Bill C-377 imposes an administrative obligation of the kind that many non-spending or non-taxation bills would impose on government departments when Parliament wishes to regulate some aspect of economic or social activity.

Clearly, the Canada Revenue Agency already has the administrative apparatus to receive documents and make them available on the CRA website. The argument that there would be an additional cost burden on the department may be met by referring to Speaker Milliken's ruling of October, 2003 where he held:

It is important to remember, however, that the requirement for a royal recommendation relates to the expenditure of public funds and not simply to the fact that someone, somehow or other, may be required to make an expenditure as a result of a provision in the bill.

In this ruling, Speaker Milliken held that Bill S-7, the heritage lighthouse protection act, could conceivably require the expenditure of public funds to maintain a lighthouse, but only once it had been given a heritage designation. He ruled that no royal recommendation was required.

In commenting on Speaker Milliken's ruling of October 29, 2003, O'Brien and Bosc note, on page 834, that any additional expenditures that may be incurred by a department in ensuring that a bill's objectives are carried out, fall within the department's operating costs, for which an appropriation would have been obtained in the usual course.

In another ruling on February 10, 1998, Speaker Parent considered a point of order as to whether Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefit Standards Act 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, required a royal recommendation because it gave the Superintendent of Financial Institutions additional supervisory powers. While conceding that the enhanced supervisory powers of the superintendent would require additional expenditures by that office, Speaker Parent noted that there was no provision for spending in the bill. The Speaker went on to rule that should an allocation of money be required an appropriations bill would be brought. He said:

Should an increase in resources be necessary as a result of these new powers, the necessary allocation of money would have to be sought by means of an appropriation bill because I was unable to find any provision for money in Bill S-3.

The factual context of Speaker Parent's February 10, 1998 ruling is analogous to the factual context with respect to Bill C-377.

Through Bill C-377, the agency would be given new responsibilities to oversee financial disclosure from labour organizations, much like the Superintendent of Financial Institutions was given new supervisory powers. The bill that extended those powers was held not to require a royal recommendation, since the allocation of money to facilitate the increased responsibilities would be achieved through an appropriation bill should that be required.

The precedents are clear and they could not be any other way. If we consider for just a moment the consequences of ignoring these decisions by past Speakers, any private member's bill that could potentially lead to the need for the allocation of resources, which would be a long list of bills, would henceforth be challengeable as needing a royal recommendation. That would mean that much private members' business could not go forward without the consent of the government. Such a scenario would dramatically impact the rights of members of Parliament to introduce and to have considered a wide range of legislation.

I am confident that upon reflection even the member opposite who raised this point of order does not want to see a situation whereby the government has a virtual veto over much of what happens in private members' business.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your ruling.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the member's attempt at brevity but I must say that it reminded of that old classic movie, Airplane from 1980, penned by Jim Abrahams and David Zucker.

What I kept thinking of when I was listening to his brief presentation was those continuous scenes where Ted Striker, the ex-army pilot who was afraid to fly would continue to tell stories to the people in the seat next to him and they would end up attempting suicide. However, I do want to thank my friend for being at least a little more brief than the official opposition House leader. I will attempt to be even briefer than my friend from the Liberal Party.

I rise to respond to last Thursday's intervention by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and yesterday's intervention by the hon. member for Saint-Lambert concerning a royal recommendation for Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations).

Bill C-377 was introduced on December 5, 2011, by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale and has since been read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance. The bill would amend the Income Tax Act to require labour organizations to provide financial information for public disclosure.

I would note that this bill was not identified by the Speaker as an item of concern with respect to the financial prerogative of the Crown, nor has it been the subject of an intervention by a minister of the Crown or a parliamentary secretary on behalf of one.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie argued that the provisions of the bill requiring labour organizations to submit financial information and the requirement for the Canada Revenue Agency to publish the information on a website with search tools somehow represent new and distinct charges on the treasury which are not currently authorized.

The hon. member for Saint-Lambert then added the information provided to the finance committee by the Canada Revenue Agency which provided estimates on the expected incremental costs associated with implementation.

There are procedural authorities and precedents for cases where a new royal recommendation was not required for incremental modifications to expand the operation of provisions already authorized by a royal recommendation. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie cited page 833 of the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. The most relevant portion pertaining to amending bills, such as Bill C-377, is that a royal recommendation is required for:

...bills which authorize new charges for purposes not anticipated in the estimates. The charge imposed by the legislation must be “new and distinct”; in other words, not covered elsewhere by some more general authorization.

Section 220 of the Income Tax Act provides the minister with the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of the act. Indeed, this authority was cited in the same materials provided to the finance committee which the member for Saint-Lambert cited yesterday.

In particular, subsection 220(2) provides broadly and generally that:

Such officers, clerks and employees as are necessary to administer and enforce this Act shall be appointed or employed in the manner authorized by law.

Clearly, the authority to retain any necessary staff has already been addressed by Parliament.

It may also be useful to add here that subsection 5(1) of the Canada Revenue Agency Act provides that:

The Agency is responsible for

(a) supporting the administration and enforcement of the program legislation....

Program legislation is, in turn, defined in section 2 of that act as:

....any other Act of Parliament....

(a) that the Governor in Council or Parliament authorizes the Minister, the Agency, the Commissioner or an employee of the Agency to administer or enforce, including the....the Income Tax Act....

Indeed, this broad mandate already enjoyed by the Canada Revenue Agency is addressed in response to the Liberal question 1(a) in the finance committee materials the hon. member for Saint-Lambert cited, which asked how Bill C-377 aligns with the Canada Revenue Agency's mandate.

The agency replied:

A measure introduced by Parliament that is incorporated into the Income Tax Act and falls under the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue will be administered by the CRA. Parliament determines if a measure will be incorporated into the Income Tax Act.

In other words, the Canada Revenue Agency has already been given a broad, sweeping mandate to administer and enforce federal taxation laws. Meanwhile, other existing provisions of the Income Tax Act allow the minister to require certain persons or entities to file information for the purposes of taxation.

Specifically, for example, subsection 149(14) dealing with qualified donors provides a requirement for public foundations to

—file with the Minister both an information return and a public information return for the year in prescribed form and containing prescribed information.

In other words, the act already requires information to be submitted to the minister in a prescribed form and containing prescribed information. Therefore, this does not constitute a new function, mandate or duty for the minister or the agency.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie also argued that making the information public represented a new and distinct activity that was not currently authorized.

First, the agency has a comprehensive website which publishes lots of information and materials, so that would not be a new responsibility for the agency.

As for making information public, I would note that the Income Tax Act provides provisions now to that effect. Subsection 149(15) relates to information that may be communicated in respect of charitable organizations. It states:

—the information contained in a public information return...shall be communicated or otherwise made available to the public by the Minister in such manner as the Minister deems appropriate...the Minister may make available to the public in any manner that the Minister considers appropriate...

In other words, the act provides the minister with the authority to publish in any manner the minister considers appropriate the content of a public information return. That other information would fall within an existing mandate and duty does not, I submit, require a royal recommendation.

Turning to some precedents, on February 10, 1998, at page 3647 of the Debates, Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, was found not to require a royal recommendation. In his ruling, Mr. Speaker Parent said, in a case where powers were expanded yet no royal recommendation was needed, that:

It seems fairly evident that the powers of the superintendent would be extended by Bill S-3. It may well be that additional expenditures would be incurred because of those enhanced powers of the superintendent. Should an increase in resources be necessary as a result of these new powers, the necessary allocation of money would have to be sought by means of an appropriation bill because I was unable to find any provision for money in Bill S-3.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie made mention of the additional tasks which would fall to the employees of the agency as well as training which might be required for the new filings. Your immediate predecessor's ruling, Mr. Speaker, at page 7261 of the Debates for February 23, 2007 on Bill C-327, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act answers this point, states:

Bill C-327 may or may not result in a greater workload for the CRTC, but the activities being proposed are within its mandate. If additional staff or resources are required to perform these activities then they would be brought forward in a separate appropriation bill for Parliament’s consideration.

More recent, on October 26, 2010, Mr. Speaker Milliken ruled concerning the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-300, an act respecting corporate accountability for the activities of mining, oil or gas in developing countries. The bill, among other things, required the Minister of Foreign Affairs to establish a process for the examination of complaints concerning possible contraventions of the guidelines. The Speaker ruled then:

—the Chair is of the view that the examination of such complaints is not a departure from or expansion of the current ministerial mandate under the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act...Bill C-300 may put forth more stringent requirements, but it does not expand the mandate per se.

It may be that a reorganization of resources or even additional funds would be required, however, it appears these would be operational in nature.

I submit that Bill C-377 is consistent with the precedents cited in that it does not authorize a new expenditure of public funds. Rather it deals with the operation of provisions already authorized by Parliament which were accompanied by a royal recommendation at the time these provisions were enacted.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie mentioned that there was nothing set out in the recently tabled supplementary estimates (B) for this fiscal year. The hon. member for Saint-Lambert also claimed that this was confirmed in the agency's answers to finance committee.

Let us be clear. The usual practice we can expect to see unfold would be that the agency would account for its operations under Bill C-377, should it become law, in its estimates after the bill becomes law. That is a common practice with respect to any proposed legislation that has not yet been enacted. The supplementary estimates argument advanced by those hon. members is really a red herring in this entire debate.

Should Bill C-377 become law, the authority to spend for the purposes set out in the bill will be under the general authority of existing broader provisions of the Income Tax Act as well as the agency's general authorities under the Canada Revenue Agency Act. Should additional funds be required, the government would seek them from Parliament as part of the supply cycle through an appropriations bill in the ordinary manner for operating expenses.

I respectively submit that Bill C-377 does not require a royal recommendation and is properly before the House.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a different point of order. I want to recognize and commend my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley on a very well referenced and articulated point of order. I hope I can only match that. I assure the House I will surpass him on the aspect of brevity.

I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-377, an act to amend the income tax act (requirements for labour organizations). Although my colleagues from the NDP have also risen on this matter, I am not convinced the arguments they put forward have been complete in terms of substance. As such, I want to offer further points on this matter for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

I submit that Bill C-377's provisions to provide for reporting and public disclosure of certain financial transactions and administrative practices of labour organizations envisages a new function and purpose within the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA. As such, the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation that authorizes CRA's current spending are being altered so that a new and distinct authorization for spending is being permanently created, which will therefore require a royal recommendation.

Past Speakers have ruled that legislation imposing additional functions on bodies funded by public money, if the functions are substantially different from their existing functions, will require a royal recommendation.

I believe that Bill C-377 will require royal recommendation for two reasons. First, the bill creates a new purpose for CRA in terms of a public reporting function that has no obligatory ties to taxation under the Income Tax Act. The bill would follow up on this additional purpose by creating what the CRA characterizes as “a comprehensive system that includes electronic processing, validations, and automatic posting to the CRA Web site”.

The Income Tax Act is concerned with the taxation of individuals, organizations and businesses. Any reporting requirements imposed on individuals and organizations are directly tied to their tax obligation or the exemption of these obligations. For example, charities can only keep their tax exempt status and donors only receive a tax receipt if the charity meets reporting requirements.

The Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for applying and interpreting the Income Tax Act in this regard. The primary goal of the agency, as Canada's tax administrator, is to ensure that taxpayers comply with their tax obligations and that Canada's tax base is protected. I want to stress that again: tax obligation.

Bill C-377 is strictly a function of publicly reporting information on one specific group of individuals, in this case labour organizations and labour trusts, outside of any direct obligations that those organizations or their members must have under the Income Tax Act. Given that it would create an additional purpose and new program requirements that would amend the Income Tax Act and modify the purpose of the CRA, the result is a new expenditure. The bill should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to a Speaker's ruling in the other place on February 27, 1991 on pages 2262 through 2264 of the Journals regarding Bill S-18, an act to further the aspirations of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The Speaker found that provisions imposing additional functions on bodies funded by public money, if the functions are substantially different from their existing functions, require royal recommendation.

The member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale and the government will no doubt argue that because labour organizations receive a public benefit, as charities do, they should be required to report as charities do.

The simple rebuttal to this argument is the fact that the reporting requirement for charities is based on a tax obligation. A charity must publicly report information in order to keep the tax exempt status it receives and the preferential tax treatment its donors enjoy. This will simply not be the case with labour organizations under Bill C-377.

To further disprove this counter-argument, I think we need to look no further than the first incarnation of Bill C-377, which was Bill C-317. The bill tied the reporting function of labour organizations to the enjoyment of the tax exempt status offered to them in paragraph (k) of subsection 149(1) of the Income Tax Act. Labour organizations not in compliance with the financial disclosure requirements outlined in Bill C-317 would lose their tax exempt status. Bill C-317 also sought to effect the tax treatment of union members if their union did not comply with its requirements by not allowing union dues to be tax deductible.

In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-317, which was delivered on my birthday of November 4, 2011, and found on pages 2984 to 2986 of the Debates, you said that Bill C-317 had not respected the rules of the Standing Orders because to remove a tax exemption was in effect to raise taxes, which would require a ways and means motion, which the bill did not have.

Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, disallowed that and forced the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale to remove the parts of the bill that tied the reporting requirements to the enjoyment of tax exempt status by labour organizations and tax deductibility of dues by their members. In doing so, there is no longer any direct tie or connection to taxation or benefits received by labour organizations or their members. Labour organizations or trusts who fail to comply with the requirements of Bill C-377 will not lose their tax exempt status and their members will not lose the tax deductibility of their dues.

Bill C-377 solely becomes a simple public reporting function, which is a new function of the Income Tax Act and a new purpose for the CRA in its capacity to administer the act. As such, it should require a royal recommendation.

The second issue I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, has to do with how Bill C-377 regulates the internal affairs of unions and their relationships with their members. In essence, this is a de facto labour relations function that is completely new for CRA and duplicates the function of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Bill C-377 is modelled on a United States reporting regulation for American unions that falls under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. This act legislates labour relations. It promotes labour union and labour management transparency through reporting and disclosure requirements for labour unions and their officials. This act is administered by the Office of Labor-Management Standards within the United States Department of Labor, not the Internal Revenue Service.

The reporting requirements in Bill C-377 were copied from the reporting requirements of the most detailed and onerous reporting form from the Office of Labor-Management Standards, Form LM-2. Specifically, the bill copies the revisions to the reporting regulations that were introduced on January 21, 2009, by the U.S. Department of Labor and later rescinded on October 13, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I will provide you with a copy of the final rule for both actions, which was posted on the U.S. Federal Register, so you can see how this legislation is a copy of the U.S. labour relations regulations.

The Disclosure Act of 1959 requires the public disclosure of union financial reports. In fact, the public disclosure is through an online, searchable database known as the electronic labor organization reporting system, the same type of electronic system proposed by the bill.

Bill C-377 is, in effect, a replication of U.S. labor relations law and regulations, specifically the department of labor regulations for the labor-management reporting and disclosure act of 1959.

The Canada Labour Code currently includes a section that deals with union financial transparency and accountability. It requires unions to disclose financial statements to members on request, or to the Industrial Relations Board to enable members to view that information. Part of their function is to regulate labour organizations.

The finance committee received a number of submissions on this bill. One submission was from Le Syndicat de professionnelles et professionnels du gouvernement du Québec. It included a legal opinion that argued that the bill was concerning labour relations. Although the argument was for an entirely different matter, I believe the substance concerning labour relations was sound, and it would be of assistance to you, Mr. Speaker, in your decision.

The predominant purpose of this bill, as promoted by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, is to increase the transparency and accountability of labour organizations. During second reading, the member stated:

With the passage of the bill, the public would be empowered to gauge the effectiveness, financial integrity and health of any labour union.

The bill's summary states:

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

The degree of detailed information this bill requires is far broader in scope than any other requirement on any other entity that is publicly disclosed by the government. This is clearly an attempt to monitor and regulate the activities of labour organizations. This is especially clear when the bill requires the detailed time and expenditures that labour organizations spend on non-labour relations activities, such as political activities and lobbying.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to a previous Speaker's ruling on October 20, 2006, and found on page 4039 of the Debates regarding Bill C-286, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger) The bill proposed to expand the witness protection program to include persons whose lives were in danger because of acts committed against them by their spouses. The Speaker explained that the bill proposed:

...a protection that does not currently exist under the witness protection program. In doing so, the bill proposes to carry out an entirely new function.

As a new function, such an activity is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation. ... New functions or activities must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

The government and the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale may argue that the function proposed by Bill C-377 is the same function the CRA performs with respect to Charities Directorate or other tax exempt organizations. Although it is true that the processes and infrastructure required may be similar, the function and purpose for those processes are very much different.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the Speaker's ruling on November 8, 2006, and found on pages 4905 and 4906 of the Debates regarding Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes). I believe the particulars on this issue have a lot of similarities in the case at hand and would deny this counter-argument.

Bill C-279 would have created a new purpose for the DNA Identification Act and established new indices in the DNA data bank, similar in context to the new database that would be created under this bill for unions. The Speaker explained there was an addition of a new purpose to the DNA Identification Act which was to identify missing persons via their DNA profiles. Again, this is similar to Bill C-377 that wishes to impose reporting requirements on another tax exempt organization under section 114 of the Income Tax Act.

In that ruling, the Speaker stated, “Amending legislation that proposes a distinctly new purpose must be accompanied by a further royal recommendation”. The Speaker's ruling on Bill C-279 clearly shows that just because a process, in that case the collecting of the DNA, and the infrastructure needed, meaning a database, are the same as the current function of an act, it is still considered a new function and purpose that gives rise to the requirement of a royal recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, whether you look at the detailed requirements of the bill, its summary, the testimony of government witnesses who spoke about how this would regulate unions or just read the statements made by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, clearly regulating labour relations is the dominant nature of this bill. No such labour relations function exists at the CRA currently. Therefore, this bill would create a new purpose, a new function and/or an activity at CRA that would require a royal recommendation.

Unlike its failed predecessor Bill C-317, the reporting requirements and the public disclosure imposed by Bill C-377 in no way is linked to the imposition or levitation of taxes, levies or tariffs. Instead, this bill seeks to use the powers of the Income Tax Act to solely provide public information that would constitute a new function or activity. In addition, the bill would clearly create a new labour relations function at the CRA that not only does not exist presently but duplicates this function that is already happening at the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Because this bill would create a new function and purpose at the CRA, I respectfully submit that Bill C-377 should require a royal recommendation.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations), introduced by the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

My hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has already risen in this House to bring to your attention the fact that this bill requires royal recommendation in order to pass. My colleague's arguments were all very clear and perfectly illustrated the NDP's concerns regarding the implications of this bill. I am raising this issue once again here today because some new information has become available to MPs, and I feel I must bring it to your attention as well.

Indeed, and as my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie already mentioned, the Canada Revenue Agency received an order from the Standing Committee on Finance to answer some questions regarding new and distinct funds that will result from Bill C-377 if it is passed. Those answers were sent to the members of the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. I will submit the document containing those answers following my speech.

First of all, the Canada Revenue Agency confirmed that the new and distinct funds that will result from Bill C-377 were not included in the most recent supplementary estimates, as is always the case with private members' business.

The Canada Revenue Agency also confirmed that this bill will result in expenditures that are not currently authorized by legislation. In response to the third question, the agency said that Bill C-377 amends the Income Tax Act to give the minister authority over these new expenditures.

My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie also pointed out that clause 1(4) of the bill, which requires the minister to make the information collected available to the public, will also result in new expenditures. The Canada Revenue Agency confirmed this in the answers forwarded to us.

The answer we received today from the agency is that, “Changes will be made to the CRA website to fulfill the requirements of the bill.”

The agency even provided an estimate of the costs resulting from system changes. For the Canada Revenue Agency, the estimated incremental costs arising from the required system changes, including changes to the Canada Revenue Agency website, are $8.5 million for 70 full-time employees in the first two years and $1 million in subsequent years for nine full-time employees.

These costs represent new expenditures because the Canada Revenue Agency is not currently committed to disclosing the information, as required by the bill. The answers obtained also refute the argument of this bill's sponsor to the effect that the agency is already doing similar work as part of the charities program.

In fact, the agency confirmed that it is not currently committed to disclose such an exhaustive amount of information as required under Bill C-377. This is what the agency had to say in this regard:

The Charities Directorate does not provide partial information to the public. The directorate gathers only the minimum amount of transactional information from registered charities, and not all that information is disclosed.

I would like to close by sharing some information obtained from the agency that says a lot about the new and distinct costs associated with Bill C-377. As it is now worded, the bill requires the implementation of an entire system that includes electronic processing, validations and automatic posting to the Canada Revenue Agency's website. The estimated incremental cost for the Canada Revenue Agency is $10.6 million for the first two years, including 91 full-time employees, and $2.1 million for each consecutive year, including 21 full-time employees. These costs are attributable mainly to information cross-referencing requirements.

It is important to note that these are the estimated costs for 1,000 respondents, but Bill C-377 is written in such a way that it includes all labour organizations and trusts, which represents close to 25,000 tax filers. The costs incurred would therefore be 25 times higher than these estimates.

I believe that it is now clear that Bill C-377 requires a royal recommendation in order to be voted on at third reading since the exorbitant costs that would be incurred by cross-referencing the large amounts of information gathered by the Canada Revenue Agency are new and distinct.

In order to make it easier for you to examine this important issue, Mr. Speaker, I will make the answers obtained from the Canada Revenue Agency available to you. I would like to thank you for the attention you will give to this important matter.

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member to be hard-working and clever. She always does the right thing, and I know she works very hard for her constituents. However, there is a bit of a disconnect in her thinking. She talks about improving accountability for first nations members, but I do not see the connection with all Canadians having to know that information.

I understand that first nations members certainly have a right, and they do now without the bill, to get that information from their leadership. It is sort of like Bill C-377, the so-called union transparency bill. If I worked 45 years for a union and I retired, if that bill passed, every Canadian would have biographical information on me and how much I make in my retirement. Quite frankly, that is not anyone else's business.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, and I know I have one second left, she also talked about all the other governments being transparent. For example, I know for a fact--

Bill C-377—Income Tax Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's intervention with great interest. While I can say that the government profoundly rejects his contention that Bill C-377 would obligate the government to more spending initiatives, I do wish to say that we will take his intervention under advisement and I wish to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that we would make a more detailed response at our earliest opportunity, after we have had a chance to consider his remarks today.

I would also suggest that the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale would also like to make a detailed response since he is the sponsor of Bill C-377. I will be advising him that he should be able to do so in short order as well.

We look forward to discussing this in more detail at a future date.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations), introduced by the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

The official opposition has not risen on a point of order on this bill until now. However, the question of new spending was raised during consideration of the bill in committee, and I now want to draw my colleagues' attention to this matter.

In my opinion, Bill C-377 contains provisions that will require new spending for purposes that are currently not authorized by the legislation, and it should therefore be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Under Standing Order 79, the House cannot pass an appropriation bill if it is not accompanied by a royal recommendation.

In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, which I read every night, O'Brien and Bosc state that two types of bills give Parliament spending authority and that they both must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Bill C-377 is of the second type, namely “bills that authorize new charges for purposes not anticipated in the Estimates”. O'Brien and Bosc specify that the charge imposed must be “new and distinct”. In other words, it must not be covered elsewhere by some more general authorization.

Clause 1 of Bill C-377 states that:

...the information contained in the public information return referred to in subsection 149.01(2) shall be made available to the public by the Minister, including publication on the departmental Internet site in a format that allows for word searches to be performed and for cross-referencing of data.

These provisions require the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for purposes not currently authorized. That means that “new and distinct” funds must be authorized to give the Canada Revenue Agency the means to manage this work, which is also “new and distinct”. Even in the most recent supplementary estimates, which were tabled a few weeks ago, there is nothing about the costs related to the work required by this bill. There is nothing to show that, when the supplementary estimates were published, the Canada Revenue Agency had already planned for this bill to become a law.

By way of proof that these costs are new and unauthorized, it is important to note that the Canada Revenue Agency has never participated in the preparation of financial reports for unions or union-related organizations. Furthermore, before the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act was amended, it required unions to produce financial reports, but this directive was given to the Chief Statistician of Canada, not the Canada Revenue Agency. The Canada Revenue Agency has thus never been responsible for managing this type of process for the unions.

During the debate at second reading of Bill C-377, the bill's sponsor suggested that the provisions of the bill were similar to those that have been in place for charities since 1977. The information requested from charities is dealt with by the Canada Revenue Agency and has nothing to do with the information requested from unions in Bill C-377. It is not comparable.

The rules for charities require them to disclose much less information and require the agency to share a great deal less data. Yet, this program alone costs over $33 million a year and employs over 300 full-time workers. If Bill C-377 is passed, the Canada Revenue Agency will have to create a new branch that will make up a whole new complex layer of government bureaucracy. A new entity will have to be created to administer and enforce the provisions of this new bill.

Furthermore, the bill is written in such a way as to include all labour organizations and all labour trusts, or almost 25,000 filers in total. It is obvious that there will be costs associated with training labour officials who are unfamiliar with all the new forms and, more importantly, costs associated with processing these returns from the 25,000 filers. None of these costs are included in costs forecast by the Canada Revenue Agency. These are “new and distinct” costs, the condition for a royal recommendation for a bill, as I mentioned earlier when quoting O'Brien and Bosc.

It is definitely important to discuss the new costs that will be incurred by the Canada Revenue Agency as a result of Bill C-377, but it is equally important that we discuss the extent of these costs. In committee, Professor John Logan, of San Francisco State University, compared this bill to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, created in 1959 in the United States.

This law provides for a similar reporting system that requires labour organizations to produce annual financial reports for the U.S. Department of Labor. The requirements for the returns under Bill C-377 are more detailed and complex than those in the U.S. Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.

Thus, we can expect that Bill C-377 will result in the same ongoing costs as those incurred under the U.S. law, if not higher costs. For fiscal 2011, the U.S. Office of Labor-Management Standards received reports from almost 25,000 U.S. labour organizations—about the same as in Canada—with a budget of $41.3 million.

Finally, the provision of Bill C-377 requiring the minister to make the information collected available to the public will also give rise to new expenditures. The departmental Internet site does not presently allow for cross-referencing of data, which is required by clause 1 of the bill. The government will therefore have to invest in an expensive computer system that can handle tens of thousands of separate returns covering thousands of distinct transactions.

For all of these reasons, it is clear that the provisions in Bill C-377 require the unauthorized spending of public money for unauthorized purposes and that the bill must therefore have a royal recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, to make it easier for you to examine this important issue, I will provide the testimony given during the Standing Committee on Finance's study of Bill C-377. I want to point out that the Canada Revenue Agency received an order from the Standing Committee on Finance to answer questions regarding new and distinct funds. I strongly believe that its answers will prove beyond doubt that Bill C-377 requires a royal recommendation. I will send you those responses as soon as they are available.

By putting this bill in the hands of the backbench member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, the government is shirking its responsibility. So far, the government has done nothing but make a series of mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that you have already had to withdraw one of this member's private member's bills from the order paper in response to a convincing point of order from the official opposition last fall, with which you agreed.

In light of the testimony we heard in committee, there is little doubt that this bill absolutely requires a royal recommendation if it comes back to the House for a vote at third reading.

I think that the government must either admit that this bill flagrantly undermines Canadian workers across the country or throw it in the legislative garbage can, where it belongs.

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was reading the House notes last night, the first thing that came to my mind, and I am glad the member mentioned it, was to compare Bill C-27 to Bill C-377. I am also glad he used the word “strangle”. That is the proper word to use with this bill and Bill C-377. The Conservatives are trying to strangle or choke organizations that do not agree with Conservative policies. If they cannot choke or strangle them with paperwork, they take away their funding, like they did with KAIROS. It did not agree with the Conservatives' ideology, so it took away its funding. That is the only example I am going to give.

I am going to ask my colleague this. Am I right to compare Bill C-27 to Bill C-377 and say that they are almost the same?

Motions in Amendment

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak about Bill C-27.

This bill is of particular interest to me, not because there are a lot of aboriginal communities in my riding, but because I put myself in the shoes of everyday Canadians who are concerned about the problems faced by the first nations, as described by my colleague, and consider the bill from that perspective.

Once again, the government foisted legislation on us without any consultative process. There is nothing new about what we are seeing today: it is common practice for the Conservative government to fail to consult those affected by its bills.

This bill is testament to the government's inability to engage in a consultative process before imposing measures. The bill will most certainly have an impact on those concerned— people who could have brought something positive to the debate. These people are better informed than we are as legislators. A consultative process enables us to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are directly affected, who work and are active in the field on a daily basis. That is why consultations are important. The government has never bothered to hold consultations before drafting legislation.

As I said earlier, this government is often driven by a populist approach. It responds to certain specific events. In this particular case, newspapers reported that a few first nations chiefs had extremely high salaries. As usual, the Conservatives are reacting to very specific issues and introducing legislation accordingly. In my opinion, that way of legislating is not good for our country and does not help us to move forward. The government is simply reacting to small-scale events that have no broad application in Canada.

In our opinion, it is unprecedented that a federal statute would prescribe the disclosure of an independent source of income. I think this will hurt the first nations. The government claims that the bill is designed to help them and that its intentions are good, but the bill could have the opposite effect.

If that much information is disclosed, a number of businesses and companies working on reserve will have to make public more information than their counterparts. These companies will have to disclose this information to the public at large. This means posting information on a website for the whole world to see. Anybody who has access to the Internet, in Canada or elsewhere, will have access to the information. It will obviously give companies that have access to privileged information regarding other companies an unfair advantage. Businesses that are forced to publish more information will lose their competitive edge.

We believe that this will actually achieve the opposite of what the Conservatives want. This will not help the communities in any way, because those businesses will not want to remain associated with first nations, since that would put them at a disadvantage in Canadian markets. We think the opposite will occur: businesses will steer clear of first nations and the money will disappear. This means even fewer resources for first nations, which is definitely not a good thing.

Judith Sayers, who holds the national aboriginal economic development chair at the University of Victoria, gives an interesting explanation:

The fallout of this is that in an effort to remove a First Nation business from the need to publish its financial statements publicly, the business is too far removed from the First Nation and has no connection or accountability to the members of the First Nation. This whole provision needs to be seriously rethought with a business perspective as well as one of equality of other companies and businesses out there that do not need to publish their financial statements for the world to see.

We are talking about entrepreneurship, which sometimes gets the Conservatives' attention. Fairness for all companies in Canada is diminishing. Some companies will be subject to certain requirements, while others will not. It is simply unfair to those businesses.

The other point I wanted to address is the fact that accountability should exist among local governments, first nations and the population. We do not understand why this information should be made public. The goal of the bill was to make this information available to the members of aboriginal communities, not to the entire world.

This measure will disadvantage these first nations. How can the goal of this bill be achieved when countless aboriginal communities simply do not have access to the Internet? The government is missing the point here. It says the information will be posted on a website, but there are people who do not even have access to the Internet. I do not have the exact figures, but a large proportion of aboriginal communities, which are often in remote areas, do not even have access to the Internet. The government is not solving a problem. It is creating a false problem and appears to be trying to solve it in order to satisfy special interests.

I would add that accountability between the first nations and their members is already covered by section 69 of the Indian Act. Measures are already in place whereby the first nations must produce reports for the department and share the information with their members. This is already included in provisions, in laws. This bill does nothing but satisfy some lobby group, probably. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation often comes up. As I was saying earlier, because of one specific incident, the government seems to be trying to change the legislation in order to satisfy a particular group that took exception to some figures a few years ago.

In my view, this bill goes against two rulings by the Federal Court. As I was saying, it has already been said that there needs to be accountability. Two rulings mention it, including the ruling in Montana Band of Indians v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), where the court found that first nations' financial statements were confidential information within the meaning of paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act and, accordingly, were not required to be disclosed. This bill contradicts federal legislation, namely the Access to Information Act.

We have a number of questions about access to information legislation. Will this be protected? The Privacy Act might be affected as well.

There was also Sawridge Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs). The court ruled that these financial statements are not confidential vis-à-vis the members of a first nations band, since the members of a band can have access to the financial statements of their own band under the Indian Bands Revenue Moneys Regulations.

This Federal Court ruling explained that these documents were already accessible to band members. In theory, Bill C-27 is not needed to gain access to this information. Laws and court rulings have already granted this access.

The government of a first nation must be accountable to its members. This bill is merely a reaction to newspaper articles. As I said earlier, the Conservatives like to react to specific incidents in this manner.

Members spoke about the salaries of first nations leaders, lumping them all together. However, as mentioned earlier, the reality is that the average salary of chiefs is $60,000 and the average salary of councillors is $31,000. It is important to note that 50% of chiefs earn less than $60,000 and that only 5% of them earn more than $100,000. I mentioned that the government was reacting to specific incidents that do not reflect the general reality in Canada. Only 5% of chiefs earn over $100,000. Here in the House, we all know our salary: we earn over $150,000. Should these chiefs, who are responsible for their bands, be making less than $60,000 or $30,000? This raises some questions.

Of course, the NDP supports transparency and accountability at all levels of government. We oppose useless measures that will serve only to increase red tape for first nations. I spoke about red tape a little earlier when I asked my colleague a question. The government says that all red tape must be eliminated because it costs too much and it is not good. However, there are two bills before the House that will increase red tape for unions and first nations: private member's Bill C-377 and Bill C-27, respectively. A government that prides itself on eliminating red tape in this country is thus doing the exact opposite, and creating red tape for specific target groups in Canada.

Unfortunately, the government did not work with us in committee at all. I said earlier that the government never consulted the first nations. When it comes to consulting the opposition, the government is even worse. The government always refuses to work with us.

We proposed 18 amendments that the Conservatives never considered. As a result, we are going to vote against this bill. I welcome any questions.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to put a question to my colleague, whom I congratulate on her speech.

The Conservatives often talk about red tape. They say they have to eliminate it as much as possible, but when the time comes for action, they do exactly the opposite. Bill C-377 generates even more red tape for the unions. And now the government is generating even more red tape for aboriginal people as well.

What can my colleague tell us about the Conservatives' doublespeak? When the time comes to take action, it does exactly the opposite and generates more red tape for communities.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their enthusiasm. I am honoured to speak today to Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations. This long title is quite pompous. The short title is the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. That sort of title should make us wary of the bill’s intent since, as usual, the Conservative government is targeting a specific, well-defined section of the population.

There is one paradoxical reason for my interest in this subject: I represent a riding where there are no first nations communities and no first nations people. According to the official data from the latest census, conducted by Statistics Canada in 2011, only 5 persons in 100,000 reported speaking an aboriginal language. That was 5, not 5,000. In comparison, there were 345 individuals who reported speaking German, for example, which is not traditionally a language that stands out in Statistics Canada’s figures.

That leads me to another remark: we know that, as of the latest census, the Conservative government abolished the long form census, technically known as form 2B. We can question the accuracy of the current figures, in relation to historic Canadian census figures, and of the conclusions based on these figures. The precision is no longer there because, even though the official statistics say that only 5 people in my riding of over 100,000 inhabitants speak an aboriginal language, I do think there are probably more than that.

And that is why I am interested in this issue. In a riding like mine, without any first nations, the perception of first nations communities is even more important, because it forms the basis for the idea of a nation—the Canadian nation—that wants to include various groups and ethnicities.

Canada is still quite young, as it was created in 1867. That is like one year compared to the multi-millennial history of some European nations. It is quite young. One of the important things in creating a nation is to fight prejudice and generalizations, and we must refrain from targeting specific groups and accusing them, with no evidence, of mismanaging public money. That is what we are talking about today at third reading of this bill.

Another aspect that worries me personally is that of the protection of personal information. Over the years in Canada we have been able to build legislation that protects personal privacy. This bill is something new, because it would disclose information—publicly and even on the Internet—that is truly personal. This kind of personal information is not requested of other groups, but will be specifically required from certain chosen, targeted groups. That also reminds me of a private member’s bill, Bill C-377, which similarly targets a specific group, in that case unions. Through such bills the government is trying to increase red tape and create unnecessary work in order to target these groups. That is the complete opposite of being inclusive and giving people a chance, assuming that people are not dishonest and organizations are not out to commit fraud.

If anyone wants to prove that a specific organization or group is committing fraud or misusing funds, it is up to the individual who makes that allegation to do so.

One of the amendments introduced by my NDP colleagues on the committee was to eliminate this additional burden that is being imposed solely on first nations, not on the population at large, as some of my colleagues have said. It is also important to emphasize that, under this act, the minister would be able to eliminate grants made to certain aboriginal groups based solely on speculation that funds had been misused. Once again, a mechanism is being permitted without the minister having to prove that there has been any misuse of public funds. Based solely on suspicion, he could cut grants and money that, as we saw in Attawapiskat, are sorely needed by the various communities.

Consistent with that logic, a number of reports will be required. In her speech this morning, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan said that some organizations had to prepare more than 200 reports, which vastly increases the amount of work they have to do and artificially creates work for people who could be providing services to the public.

Do people really read all those reports, or are they merely there to generate work artificially? That is the question I would ask. Those communities need schools and drinking water. The people in my riding cannot even imagine what life can be like in an aboriginal community, because they have access to basic services. Consequently, they do not understand this gap within a single nation, where we have, on the one hand, people who have no drinking water or basic services and, on the other, those who enjoy a relatively decent life.

One may indeed wonder whether people really read all these reports and whether they are not the paradox of the Conservative government, which, as we have seen in recent budgets, is making systematic cuts to services. The main argument, if not the only argument, is that they want to reduce the needless workload involved in those services. Paradoxically, the government is creating an additional workload for groups that have been specifically targeted. This is nothing but red tape that few people can understand. In practice, only accountants will be able to understand the actual management implications of figures on certain lines of a financial report, and only they will be able to determine whether those figures are genuinely indicative of mismanagement.

Once again, I still tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, to consider that organizations, by default, are not poor managers. Aboriginal organizations are not fraudulent, and it is up to those who claim the contrary to prove it, not to create an artificial workload for all the communities, associations and entities that manage public funds.

Helping Families in Need Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to build on the comments by my colleague for Burnaby—Douglas.

There is an outstanding hypocrisy associated with the bill. The Conservatives have this innocuous apple pie, motherhood kind of a bill that would give leave to some poor family whose child might be kidnapped. However, on the other hand, they have declared war on labour and the left with this unmitigated assault on trade union freedoms in Bill C-377.

The Conservatives have declared war on the Rand formula which gave us labour peace during the entire post war era for the last 50 years. Those guys want to declare war on labour and the left and yet they want us to think that they are all warm and fuzzy, motherhood and apple pie because they will give two weeks leave to somebody whose child is kidnapped.

Labour

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that notorious union buster Terrance Oakey is once again darkening the towels of the Prime Minister's Office. After successfully killing off the fair wages act, his next target is Bill C-377, the Conservatives' latest assault on labour.

Why are Conservatives letting the special interests of one well-connected Conservative lobbyist upset the labour peace in this country? If they do want to declare war on labour, why do they not do it through the front door instead of skulking around with a private member's bill like a bunch of cowards?