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.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I sat beside my colleague in the hearings on Bill C-377. I know he is very passionate and very capable on labour issues. We heard witness after witness give testimony. We saw none of that reflected in the final report on that bill. It is when ideology really trumps the needs of Canadians and Canadian workers that we all lose.

What is fearful, through the debate here today, is that the number of Canadians who are working for minimum wage has doubled under the current government. The Conservatives are intent on driving wages down in our country, hollowing out the middle class, and it is unions that have really contributed to developing a middle class. It is egregious and it is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the House for allowing unanimous consent so that I could take part in this debate, which was noted by my friend and colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He was not sure whether it was because the House had anticipated my comments so much and were so looking forward to what I had to say, or more so that they liked to limit my friend and colleague from Kings—Hants to 10 minutes. Whatever the rationale was, I appreciate the House allowing me to go forward.

I want to speak about the principles behind some aspects of the legislation. One of the comments that the parliamentary secretary mentioned when he led off the debate today was that it was not strange to have a bill of this size with so many components in it. It is 321 pages, but he said the last four bills have been of similar size.

The last four bills have been presented by the same government and concerns have been raised. Certainly the opposition parties voiced their disapproval with such a practice on those four occasions, but he was able to justify the bill by saying the last four were presented in a very similar manner. That would be like an NHL coach saying, “I didn't make the playoffs the last four years, but now you decide to fire me in my fifth year”. The unfortunate part is that maybe we do not get an opportunity to fire the government for another couple of years, but that day too shall come.

I want to talk about what was mentioned by my colleague from Kings—Hants with regard to some of the aspects of this piece of legislation as it deals with changing labour relationships in this country. I will read these into the record.

I want to talk about principles that a government must respect in creating legislation, such as what we are debating today, that affects millions of Canadians. In particular, it affects over 1.2 million hard-working Canadians who work in federal industries and the public service.

For Canadians, the affected workers in particular, to believe in these laws, they must have faith and trust in their government. However, trust and respect does not come with some gun pointed to their heads. Governing is about striking balance, a balance between things such as the environment and the economy, between one part of the country and the other, between social and economic values, and between the interests of the employer and the employee. Part of figuring out that balance is listening to people who may not agree with us and respecting the principles of fairness and due process when creating laws that fundamentally affect them. I do not believe there has been a government in recent history that has thrown so many things out of balance and replaced due process and fairness with political expediency than the current Conservative government.

The amendments to labour legislation in the bill are just another example of this. The government is using this omnibus budget bill as a back door to making major changes to the rules affecting collective bargaining in the public service. These changes, without doubt, are being made to weaken the public service unions by stacking the deck in favour of the employer and in this case, the employer is the government.

This type of behaviour only breeds mistrust and disrespect. It is not how we as individuals would expect to be treated and it simply lessens the institution of government when it continues out of control as we have seen under the current government. In order for our employees to prosper, whether it is in private industry or in government or workers in society or the economy at large, we need to have good labour relations. That is fundamental. We need labour relations that respect the interests of the workers and the employer in a fair and balanced manner, respecting due process and developed through real consultation.

Everything the government has done concerning labour relations since getting its majority has not been about striking balance. Instead, it has been about weakening the labour movement as much as possible in both the public and private sectors, from record use and methods used to impose back-to-work legislation to using—and one could say abusing—the private member legislation process as a backdoor way to introduce anti-labour legislation.

Bill C-377 was an obvious example. As we went through the testimony and the witnesses on that particular bill, we saw experts raise concerns about privacy and about the costs incurred, and not just by unions. The government tried to say that Bill C-377 was about union transparency by posting their actuals online. That would be a cost to not just the unions but also to administer it. This is the party of small government. The burden this would have placed on the CRA to administer such a mammoth undertaking would be significant to the treasury.

The government said it was all about openness and transparency. We threw a poison pill in there. We brought an amendment requesting it take the same rules it is asking of organized labour and ensure that our professional organizations play by them as well. Therefore, lawyers, doctors and chambers of commerce would have to post in the same manner as it is asking organized labour to. The Conservatives voted against that. It was not about openness and transparency. It was a poison pill. We did not think those organizations should have to post either. However, we knew that the Conservative government would vote against it because this was an attack on organized labour in this country.

Bill C-525 is now the second example. I expect we will see many more examples soon to come.

Never mind due process. Never mind fairness and balance. These terms mean nothing to the government. Political expediency at all costs is the motto across the aisle. Its fight with labour is based on an ideology that Canadians do not fundamentally believe in, an ideology that believes that if Canada is to prosper, the rights and benefits of workers must be sacrificed.

As a Liberal, I can say that I do not always agree with the labour issues. In past governments we fought with unions and we brought forward back-to-work legislation. However, we have always tried to respect due process. We know that the number one enemy for the Conservative government is labour. There is nothing in this bill that changes my mind. Giving federal employers the power to unilaterally declare parts of the public service an essential service, taking away its right to strike, and removing the option of unions to seek arbitration and settle a dispute to avoid disruption, stacks the deck unequally in the government's favour.

Balance in governing is an ideal every government should strive for, fostering trust and mutual respect as a goal. Labour relations are no different.

We have heard from FETCO, the organization that represents federally regulated industries. We heard from the CLC, which represents the people in those industries. They are both saying that the way to get this right is through consultation and consensus. They want the government to keep its nose out of their business. Instead, it continues to get engaged through private member legislation and aspects of these omnibus bills that continue to tip the scales. It is not just the unions or those workers who are saying this is unfair. The companies themselves see this as being unfair.

That is one of the problems we have with this omnibus approach to presenting legislation. If the government were confident about it, why would it not bring that forward to the House? It has a majority anyway. All we have to do is count. It will pass it anyway. Let us have the debate so it can tell us why it is doing that.

Opposition Motion—Senate Accountability

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with my honourable colleague from Newton—North Delta.

After being locked out of the House of Commons for five weeks by the Conservative government, I am unabashedly delighted to be back in this chamber to resume our debates. I always enjoy listening to what my colleagues have to say. Not long ago I had the good fortune to hear my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville refer to Liberal and Conservative senators as “dishonest parliamentarians” for allegedly dipping into the till and misappropriating public funds, actions which the RCMP are investigating. That is interesting. Clearly they are guilty of some dishonesty.

One of the attacks heard earlier today concerned the motion tabled by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth. I would like to thank him for that motion. MPs do not have the same burden to bear as senators. The NDP's position on this matter is perfectly consistent. MPs should not regulate themselves. It is precisely for that reason that we need a third party to investigate whether MPs are indeed honest and spend taxpayer dollars properly in the interests of their constituents. The NDP believes in the need for transparency, but unlike the Liberals, we do not believe that we must also be judge and jury.

As everyone knows, for the past two years, we have been dealing with a majority Conservative government that appears to disregard the people and their needs and turn a blind eye to the scandals piling up around it week after week, day after day. Thank goodness we have opposition days that enable us to raise issues that are important to our constituents. I think my colleague from Toronto—Danforth took a step in the right direction by tabling a motion today that would improve transparency and perhaps restore the public’s trust in the Senate which today, unfortunately, is a sick institution.

We need to remember the reason why the Westminster system initially provided for the establishment of both an upper and a lower house. The objective originally was to have the wise, appointed members of the upper house act as a counterbalance and ensure that the lower house had done its legislative work properly and not screwed up. It was a noble objective. In fact, the idea at the outset was not bad one.

The Senate could have remained a chamber of sober second thought where wise individuals reflected on legislation passed by the House of Commons. Unfortunately, in recent decades, an institutional shift has taken place thanks to the Liberals and Conservatives. The chamber of sober second thought has become a repository for friends. Liberal and Conservative party supporters are rewarded. They need only make their way to the other side of the building to receive a salary to the age of 75. In years past, they were guaranteed a salary for life. When the voters reject a former MP or minister in an election, the Prime Minister appoints him to the Senate. When an MP is rejected by the voters, he is rewarded with a Senate appointment.

The old parties in power gradually changed the very meaning of the upper house and made it a repository for friends of the regime, a place where people are rewarded with partisan appointments. Those partisan appointments are not based in any way on expertise, but often on reputation. The appointments are partisan, and the work is partisan. Celebrities are appointed to the Senate to do the job on the ground, to raise funds in our towns, villages and communities. Should that really be the work of someone who is appointed to the Senate? We do not think so. We also think that the institution is so far gone that it should be abolished. Lastly, we also think that, in the meantime, we could remove some of the biggest irritants from the Senate. The point of the NDP motion introduced today is to restrict partisan work.

Why use public funds to travel across the country to give talks and raise money for the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party? Does that really serve the public interest? Why not move forward immediately with the motion the NDP has introduced to improve the situation and correct the problem that has crept in over the years, over the decades. The member for Sherbrooke mentioned it earlier. This is not a new idea in the NDP. We believe that the Senate is superfluous and that we could easily do without it, especially given how sick it is and all the partisan appointments that have been made.

Remember that, when the current Prime Minister was in opposition, he said he would never, ever, appoint unelected senators. He has appointed 59 of them. That is what you call packing a chamber, and it works. We think this institution, which is undemocratic, archaic and obsolete, deserves to be forgotten and relegated to the dustbin of history. In the meantime, however, before we see how and when we can do that, perhaps we can improve matters. That is what the NDP is doing: actually trying to improve matters.

The upper chamber, or the red chamber, as it used to be called in Quebec, was abolished in 1968. Nova Scotia's Senate was abolished in 1928. I know those dates by heart. I do not believe many people will demonstrate in the streets of Quebec demanding that the senate, the red chamber, be restored. That will not be the case in Nova Scotia either. People often demonstrate in Montreal and Quebec. We are very civic-minded, but I have never heard that demand made.

This summer, my team and I knocked on thousands of doors in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, collecting signatures for a petition calling for the abolition of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, you should have seen the enthusiasm of some of my constituents. Many asked me whether they could sign twice. I said no because that is not ethical or legal. They could sign only once, but I said I would definitely pass on the message for them. People are fed up. They are exasperated with this government's partisan politics and partisan appointments and with those of the previous government. People are incensed to see the appointees, those who are supposed to be the sages of this country, embezzle public funds and use them solely for their own political parties or, even worse, for their personal interests.

That is the case with the saga involving Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, Mac Harb and Mike Duffy who, it seems, may be at the centre of a cover-up attempt orchestrated and organized by the Prime Minister's Office. The NDP asked the Speaker to rule on whether the Prime Minister had misled the House on June 5 when answering our questions. That would be very serious.

In light of the current Senate mess, we believe that it is time to eliminate the partisan work of the hundred or so senators and to have them do what they are supposed to do, namely, to review laws and sometimes enhance, improve or correct them. This happened last year with private member's bill C-377, which is an abomination. Senators were able to make amendments that, quite frankly, were very important to the protection of the public interest, privacy and unions.

We are hoping for changes to be made quickly. We do not need to dither and debate the issue for weeks. The motion moved by the NDP today can be implemented very quickly to bring about change. If the Liberals and the Conservatives were to act in good faith and really wanted to improve things, I do not see why they would vote against the NDP motion. It would help restore Canadians' and Quebeckers' confidence in an institution that needs it after being rocked by all these scandals, after all the partisan appointments of senators, who apparently used public money for private purposes and were reimbursed for expenses to which they were not entitled.

Therefore, in the interest of transparency and in order to restore people's confidence and put an end to the crass partisan activities of Liberal or Conservative senators, I am asking everyone in the House to support the motion moved by the member for Toronto—Danforth.

Private Members' Business

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business.

As hon. members know, our Standing Orders provide for the continuance of private members’ business from session to session within a Parliament.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 41st Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

As such, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the Order Paper at the conclusion of the previous session are automatically reinstated to the Order Paper and shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

All items will keep the same number as in the first session of the 41st Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the Order Paper but had not yet been introduced will be republished on the Order Paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be recertified by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

Of course all items in the order of precedence remain on the order of precedence or, as the case may be, are referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

Specifically, at prorogation there were three private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to committee.

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, Bill C-458, an act respecting a national charities week and to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable and other gifts) is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders) is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, committees will be required to report on each of these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, prior to prorogation, nine private members' bills originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bills are deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House: Bill C-217, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials); Bill C-266, an act to establish Pope John Paul II day; Bill C-279, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity); Bill C-290, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting); Bill C-314, an act respecting the awareness of screening among women with dense breast tissue; Bill C-350, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accountability of offenders); Bill C-377, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations); Bill C-394, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment); and Bill C-444, an act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer).

Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted these nine bills.

Consideration of private members’ business will start on Thursday, October 17, 2013.

As members may be aware, among the items in the order of precedence or deemed referred to committee, there are four bills standing in the name of members recently appointed as parliamentary secretaries who, by virtue of their office, are not eligible to propose items during the consideration of private members' business.

Bill C-511, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (period of residence) and Bill C-517, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons) were awaiting debate at second reading in the order of precedence at the time of prorogation.

Bill C-458, An Act respecting a National Charities Week and to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable and other gifts), and Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), were in committee at the time of prorogation and, as stated earlier, have been returned there.

This is in keeping with the principle expressed at pages 550-551 and 1125 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which provides that bills remain on the order of precedence since they are in the possession of the House and only the House can take further decision on them.

These items are therefore without eligible sponsors but remain in the possession of the House or its committees. If no action is taken, at the appropriate time these items will eventually be dropped from the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(c).

Hon. members will find at their desks a detailed explanatory note about private members’ business. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in this session. The table officers are available to answer any questions members may have.

I thank all members for their attention.

Labour

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I opposed Bill C-377, the union transparency bill. I can also tell the House that I never have taken any money from unions before or after being elected MP. Had I done so and voted against Bill C-377, I would have been in a conflict of interest.

To contrast, the Liberal leader took over $100,000 in personal payments from unions, including tens of thousands of dollars in his time as MP. After receiving this money, he is now a vocal opponent of the union transparency bill and his party is opposing it in the Senate.

I will be raising this matter with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Could the government comment?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-377, the Conservatives are going after unions the same way the IRS went after the Tea Party in the United States. The Canada Revenue Agency is trying to squeeze $72 million out of unions.

The Minister of National Revenue continues to claim that she has not put a figure to the penalties, but an internal document from her agency proves the opposite. Why?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

We have seen an anti-labour agenda from the Conservative government. It has done it through the back door with private members' bills. Bill C-377 is a really good example of a bill that tried to impose the kinds of reporting requirements on the trade union movement to which other organizations were not subject.

Bill C-60 is another attempt to take a run at crown corporations and the collective bargaining process that is in place. This, again, plays into the government's agenda and people need to be concerned about what is going on.

Our country is a stronger place because of fair and free collective bargaining and we do not want processes that interfere with that.

Speaker's Ruling

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to our amendments to Bill C-60.

I figured the members would be interested in talking more about this during questions and comments, so I had to hurry. Still, I will use my time to talk about why the Bloc Québécois's amendments to Bill C-60 are so important.

Once again, the government has tabled a budget implementation bill that makes many changes that are not strictly financial. Unfortunately, under the Conservative government, we have gotten used to seeing measures like these in mammoth bills. Several different committees have had to look at measures that originated with the Standing Committee on Finance and end up going back there.

It is very difficult for both MPs and Canadians to follow exactly what is going on. I think that was the government's plan when it decided to bury so many other measures in the budget implementation bill.

Today, I would like to focus on how some of our amendments relate to the Canada health transfer for Quebec. Other provinces have also expressed disapproval regarding the federal government's cuts to health transfers. The Conservatives say that they have not cut anything. They say that the budget remains the same, that it is stable. However, we are not seeing the 6% increase that was supposed to happen.

Instead of growing by 6% per year, the Canada health transfer will increase in step with economic growth, though it will never rise by less than 3%. Over time, the federal government will reduce funding for health care to a fraction of the 50% it was originally. By 2024, it will probably shrink to 18.6%.

Why do we want to get rid of that clause? We want the health transfer to continue increasing by 6%. We all know that health costs are skyrocketing in Quebec and the other provinces. The Government of Quebec reacted strongly to this decision.

When the federal government announced its plan, Quebec's finance minister reacted. A message on the Government of Quebec's website reads as follows:

While the federal budget confirms technical changes to the equalization program, Mr. Marceau pointed out that Quebec had asked that the caps that were imposed on the program in 2009 be removed. “Because of these caps, Quebec has suffered significant financial losses totalling $7.6 billion since 2009-10. Combined with budget shortfalls resulting from the federal government's unilateral decisions in 2011 regarding health care, Quebec will lose out on $8.6 billion between 2014-15 and 2024-25. Together, these unilateral changes are having a very serious negative impact on Quebec's public finances. The Government of Quebec is calling on the federal government to reverse these unfair decisions,” Minister Marceau stated.

This shows what a serious impact these decisions are having. That is why I am confident that at least the members in the House from Quebec will support our call to delete this amendment on health transfers.

Of course there are other issues related to crown corporations, credit unions and securities, and I would be remiss if I did not address them. Once again, we proposed amendments to make this budget implementation bill more equitable.

In the case of credit unions, this measure was introduced in 1972 in order to allow Canadian credit unions to build capital faster. From our perspective, of course, we are particularly concerned about the Caisses Desjardins.

Most credit unions are subject to a federal corporate tax rate of about 11%, and the additional deduction for credit unions means they can enjoy a lower tax rate, since they are not otherwise eligible for the small business deduction, up to a maximum cumulative amount, which is directly related to the total amounts the credit unions owe their members.

This budget announces plans to phase out this additional deduction for credit unions over a five-year period. It will be completely eliminated by 2017.

On top of the impact on the caisses populaires members, some fear that certain branches will close if this deduction is cancelled.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing to maintain the current deduction formula. I would remind hon. members that budget 2013 is a frontal attack on several aspects of Quebec society. Eliminating the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds that help vulnerable Quebec businesses, such as Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN, is just another one of the obstacles the Conservative government is putting in the way of small businesses and investors in Quebec.

Clause 15, which deals with this measure affecting credit unions and caisses populaires, should also be eliminated.

As hon. members know, the Bloc Québécois has made securities their issue for a very long time, for ages, or certainly since the current Minister of Finance got it in his head—in a pigheaded way, in fact—to create a Canada-wide securities commission. He wants to impose it on Quebec and the provinces.

Quebec is not the only province that is against this decision. However, this issue got a lot of ink, in Quebec in particular, and it will get even more. The Supreme Court recently made a ruling whereby the provinces, Quebec, have all the latitude they want to take care of their securities commissions themselves.

I have in hand a press release from the Government of Quebec, which slammed this decision when the Conservative Minister of Finance brought down his budget. Mr. Marceau says he does not understand why the federal government is insisting on setting up a Canada-wide securities commission when the rulings handed down by the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are clear. Minister Marceau also said he is surprised that the federal government extended the mandate of the Canadian securities transition office. This is what Minister Marceau said:

Allowing the federal government to insinuate itself in securities regulation, which is within Québec’s exclusive jurisdiction, is out of the question.

It is rather surprising. Well, it is and it is not, since the government's stubbornness is not surprising. However, when the Supreme Court has given a ruling, it is time to give up. The Supreme Court made that decision for a reason, and that reason is just as clear as what is set out in the Constitution: that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces must be respected.

Yet, the Minister of Finance and his friends on Bay Street, probably, are telling themselves that they are in control, that they have the power and that they are going to shove this much-touted Canada-wide securities commission down the throats of Quebec and the other provinces no matter what the cost.

Take, for example, what is happening around the world. The government often brags that it prevented an economic disaster, but not all countries were so lucky. One of the reasons we were is because of our securities system, which ensures that Quebec and the provinces can have their own control system if they want. The system is working well.

The OECD has said as much about Canada's securities system. Other countries also work this way, so I do not understand why the minister would continue down the path he is taking when everyone, except perhaps his friends on Bay Street and a few provincial governments, are saying that he can have a Canadian commission if he wants but that each province, and Quebec in particular, should continue to have their own control over the securities system.

I have to wrap up, but I would be remiss if I did not mention the federal government's decision to interfere in Crown corporations' collective bargaining negotiations. This is a great cause for concern. We have already seen what happened with Canada Post and what is now happening with CBC/Radio-Canada. The government wants to interfere in negotiations. Obviously, CBC/Radio-Canada's concern is maintaining control over its newsroom. This is all also related to Bill C-377, which started making the headlines again yesterday.

In this context, the House must adopt the Bloc Québécois’s amendments to delete those provisions and ensure that the implementing legislation deals with tax measures and leaves out all the other measures that should be introduced in separate bills.

Labour

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

Mr. Speaker, a union is made up of workers. When you attack a union, you attack workers.

What do they have against workers?

Information provided by the Commissioner of Lobbying proves that Bill C-377 is actually a government bill disguised as a private member's bill.

The member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale met with none other than the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, the incomparable Nigel Wright, on this matter. That is not all, however. According to the Commissioner of Lobbying, representatives of Merit Canada also attended those meetings.

Why was the Prime Minister's former chief of staff interested in a private member's bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP refuses to accept envelopes, whereas the Conservatives write cheques to senators who break the Senate rules. That is the difference.

The Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, said that Bill C-377 is a significant invasion of privacy.

I do not know if I need to remind them, but the members opposite are supposed to be libertarians rather than control freaks. It seems that they have forgotten all their principles since coming to power, and that is why today they resemble Liberals.

Will the Conservatives move forward with Bill C-377 despite the commissioner's objections concerning violations of privacy?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I'll answer the questions.

In the Canada Labour Code, under federally regulated, it is mandated that should a member of the union request financial statements of the union leadership, they are to provide them free of charge. That is covered in the Canada Labour Code.

Bill C-377 is not solely limited to the Canada Labour Code. As you know, it's coming in through a different act that is pan-Canadian in all jurisdictions. There are three provinces in Canada—Alberta, P.E.I., and Saskatchewan—that have no reporting requirements within their provincial statutes. So there are three provinces where, even if you asked for financial statements, you're not necessarily going to get them; you can't get any information. There is a gap in terms of what can be asked for on reporting provisions across the country.

With respect to the burden, I will tell you that it's not an insignificant amount of money that we're talking about here. For the purposes of our own, we took a look at the federal private jurisdiction, the very general calculations that you can glean. It's about a half a billion dollars in dues that are paid in the federal private jurisdiction. That's just 10% of the entire workforce in Canada, and that's a significant number. If you extrapolate that, you're in the $5 billion range in terms of union dues and maybe even more.

So when you talk about the burden on unions, I think they have adequate resources to provide this information, which is being sought by their members, and I'm comfortable with Bill C-377.

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

The first one is with regard to the Canada Labour Code and reporting provisions for organized labour. There are those provisions within the code now for unions to report audited statements. With the push forward on Bill C-377, that really exposes a great deal more detail. Could you give me your opinion as to whether you find there are redundancies there? Is there a necessity in going to the extent that Bill C-377 does, with the burden this is going to place on organizations? There's time, energy, the cost behind these reporting regimes. Are they not already covered within the Canada Labour Code?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you very much, and thank you for helping to familiarize the government members with the law of the land on this issue. I think it's particularly important and helpful to edify all members of Parliament. I'll make sure the message gets back to the minister as well, as part of this ongoing pedagogy.

I also have a question with regard to, in general, the government's attitude not just to public broadcasting but to organized labour. Whether it is Bill C-377 or some of the changes proposed in the budget implementation act, do you see an ideological vendetta on behalf of this government against organized labour in pitting the majority of Canadians, or in trying to pit the majority of Canadians, against the interests of organized labour?

Mr. Georgetti.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Would Bill C-377 interfere with your ability to bid competitively to have the access you're looking for?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I think he's just raising a point that we remain on a topic today, so I'll ask that you stick to that topic as much as possible. Bill C-377 isn't before us.