Evidence of meeting #83 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was unions.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
President, Canadian Labour Congress
I don't know what the question is.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. Thank you.
We'll move on now.
Mr. Boulerice, you have five minutes.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to hear my colleagues opposite say that this is a private member's bill. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities must be confused because he always presents it as a Conservative bill. He has done so repeatedly.
I think we have to stress the fact that, kind of like the Canadian Bar Association wrote in its document, this is potentially a very expensive solution to the problem… Actually, we do not fully understand the problem that needs to be solved. I have to stress that: there were six complaints in a year for 4.2 million unionized workers. That cannot really be said to be a problem. Are things perfect? No, but it is quite a good percentage, thank you very much. If it were a baseball batting average , it would be very satisfactory, I feel.
Mr. Blakely, you represent middle-class working people, plumbers, electricians. They pay union dues. From now on, their organizations are going to have a very expensive administrative burden on their shoulders, while their people need services from their own unions. What effect will a bill like this have on your members, on the people you represent?
Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Well, if you look at our organization, we're an international union. We do not report in the United States, as was suggested earlier. In Canada we are not required to report under the American legislation, but we do get information from our American colleagues.
They tell us—and we've confirmed this with the professionals who do our accounting, the actuarial benefit consulting, and that sort of thing—that this bill will add 20% to the cost of the administration of the union. It will require the $1 billion pension fund to file a report the size of a large city's phone book. It will take money away from our ability to service people, take money away from our ability to provide pensions, take money away from our ability to look after kids' teeth, so we're opposed to this sort of reporting.
We are not opposed to transparency. We are completely transparent to our members; we do not think we need to be transparent to the merit shop.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Blakely. I think that was clear and transparent enough.
I would like to ask Mr. Logan a question if he can hear me alright.
Professor, Labour and Employment Relations, San Francisco State University
I do.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
A little earlier, you said how much it costs the American government, $6.5 million, in fact, to handle all the information submitted by the unions. As I understand it, we are talking about much the same number of organizations here in Canada, that would be required to fill in forms that ask for much more information than the Americans are asking for.
Can we assume that it could cost the Canada Revenue Agency an equivalent amount to that $6.5 million?
Professor, Labour and Employment Relations, San Francisco State University
Well, yes, and in addition to that, in Canada you have the costs of establishing this division in the first place. It will be an entirely new and complex layer of government bureaucracy. You have the costs of training union officers, who are completely unfamiliar with these forms, whereas in the U.S. we have many decades of experience with similar forms.
In addition, as I said before, the forms that the Canadian bill is based on are the most complex ones in the United States, which apply only to organizations with revenues of over $250,000 per year. For smaller organizations, we have much simpler forms, but under this bill you do not have that; everyone fills in the same one.
Your bill also covers public unions as well as private unions. Public unions are excluded in the U.S.
All of these suggest that the costs in Canada will be very substantial indeed to the government, both at the national level and at the regional level as well.
In 2003, when the Bush administration introduced these new, more complicated forms with the $5,000 requirement, it claimed at that time that the costs were going to be very slight, but it has turned out, both for government and for unions, to be untrue. From the Department of Labor in the Federal Register and from academic studies, we have information that demonstrates that what they said about the costs has not proven to be accurate.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I thank the witnesses for the passion they've brought to this discussion.
I want to make a quick comment and then head into some questions. Certainly, as a nurse and a former health care provider, I know that within Interior Health everyone, union and non-union, over a certain threshold had their wages published; I think it was either $80,000 or $100,000. I know that it's a typical practice in school boards and health authorities. I don't believe it's ever had any constitutional challenges. I just wanted to fly that.
Here's what I'm really going to ask for. Because I have a whole bunch of questions, I'm going to ask for just a quick yes or no. We'll go around the table for each.
We have different opinions on this bill, and we know that Mr. Hiebert has proposed a number of amendments. Can you say that the amendments will improve the bill if we get the proper language?
First, if we ensure that we avoid publishing home addresses, is that going to improve the bill or not?
Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Somewhat, but not in terms of the Privacy Act.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I need a yes or no, because we have to do this quickly. Mr. Mazzuca?
Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Well, I think I addressed that before. It would in respect...but it would still cause concerns for the privacy question.
Conservative
Conservative
Federal and Ontario Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Again, this is down into the weeds of drafting—
Conservative
