Finance Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

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

Sure, Mr. Dykstra, and thank you for the question.

It's my belief—and the belief of Parliament, for that matter—that lobbying activities, political activities, are of public interest. That's why Parliament has an officer responsible for lobbying. The Lobbyists Registration Act places limits on the contact that individuals can have with members of Parliament. Every contact has to be registered and disclosed.

Similarly, charities have to disclose their political activities, and are in fact limited in how much political activity they can participate in. That demonstrates a public interest in knowing where organizations or individuals are spending their time and money. In the same vein, this legislation requires similar disclosure—again, as it does in the United States—to create that level playing field.

That's the basis for the requirement. The public has an interest in knowing this information.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

So the political activity of unions in the United States is included within the context of their bill.

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

Absolutely—and the time spent.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you for that.

One of the pushbacks I've heard on it is that those who are in the industry of lobbying and working with levels of government, at least at the federal level, have to disclose the amount of time they are lobbying through the lobbyists registrar. How would that change? Are they not required to do that now? Why wouldn't we use that as the vehicle to achieve what you're trying to accomplish?

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

Certainly organized labour leaders, if they are directly lobbying an elected official, are required under the act to disclose that information to the lobbyists registrar as well, but this is talking about all levels of government, not just the federal level.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Understood.

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

That legislation covers only federal lobbying. It doesn't cover lobbying at other levels. That would be included in this legislation.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Prior to the mid-1990s, under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, which is now the Corporations Returns Act, it was required that labour organizations submit financial information to the Chief Statistician of Canada. I'm sure you have done a lot of research on this. How does this compare with what happened previously?

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

Previously the legislation required disclosure to the statistician, as you pointed out. That legislation was later withdrawn, but it was never made public, and that's the big difference between what was happening then and what this bill is proposing. The level of disclosure is slightly different, but the big difference is that this is publicly disclosed, and that never was.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, Chair, I've heard from labour organizations in my riding and from others about the definition of labour organizations within the bill being too broad. What is your opinion on the current definition?

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

I think the current definition is appropriate. Of course, a lot of thought was put into making sure that it wasn't so broad that it would capture organizations that were doing other activities, yet not so narrow that it would exclude organizations that were effectively doing the same thing. The words that were chosen were carefully thought through. We wanted to make sure that it wasn't too narrow or too broad and that it wouldn't miss something or go too far in either case.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dykstra.

Mr. Hiebert, I want to thank you for presenting your bill to us here today.

Colleagues, I will suspend for one minute.

I'll ask all the presenters to very quickly come to the table. We'll start as soon as we can. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call the meeting back to order.

I want to thank our guests for joining us here this afternoon.

First of all, we have the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and then the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. We also have two guests by video conference, and I hope that the sound is working. We have, from San Francisco State University, Professor John Logan.

Professor Logan, can you hear me?

[Dr. John Logan, Professor, Labour and Employment Relations, San Francisco State University]

I can hear you. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

We also have, by video conference from British Columbia, Mr. Dan Kelly, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Mr. Kelly, can you hear me?

[Daniel Kelly, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

I can hear you fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

We have an hour and a half for the rest of this session, so I would ask our witnesses to do an opening statement for a maximum of five minutes. There are a lot of questions from members on this issue.

We'll start right away. Go ahead, Mr. Blakely, please.

[Robert Blakely, Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO]

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

I'm one of the 500,000 men and women who make their living in one of Canada's biggest and most important industries, the building and construction trades. Shortly put, we build the nation.

We've had a number of fairly important and I think shared concerns with the current Government of Canada dealing with energy, pipelines, nuclear, natural resource extraction, and looking after Canadian veterans. We've been a pretty reliable partner on that with industry and with government.

We would like to build a stronger Canada. What we said we were going to do on that subject with you, we have done. We have done it through regulatory reform, through the pipeline debates, and through Bill C-45. We think the current private member's bill will make a lot of our members question why we would bother to try to work with the Government of Canada. I'm here to ask you not to make a mistake.

We're about putting people to work. What's at stake here is the use of the taxation power of the Government of Canada to punish a perceived enemy that a number of people think has never supported us since Confederation.

Let me put the argument on a higher plane. If the dues paid by a union member are moneys deducted from income prior to tax being paid, then union dues are taxpayer-funded. This premise is wrong, both in law and in logic: the union member gets the tax break, not the union, but let me indulge this for a moment without conceding the point.

If the public policy principle is that if the taxpayer funds it, then the taxpayer gets to know about it, look at your own return when you file it. Line 212 of the income tax return provides for annual union, professional, or like dues. They may be deducted in order to calculate net income. This should apply to doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, engineers, human resource professionals, and a host more, because those sorts of organizations are funded by tax dollars. If they are funded by tax dollars, why would they not be required to disclose, if this is solid public policy?

There are thousands of employer organizations in this country. There are thousands of other not-for-profit, industry-based advocacy organizations that are funded by dues deducted from pre-tax income of corporate Canada. This must of course mean that they are funded by tax dollars. If it is sound public policy to require unions to disclose, why would they not be required to disclose?

The mother of all tax breaks is the 75% of the first $350 we get from our political donations, and that is actually a tax credit for tax paid. The mandate of political parties is to nominate candidates, to set out platforms, to elect leaders—one of whom will eventually become the prime minister of the country—and to affect the country. If political parties are funded by tax dollars, are they required to disclose? The answer is yes, but it is a simple financial statement. There is no breakdown. It is all aggregated data. There is nothing that will tell you what someone has done.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

[Robert Blakely]

Business gets to deduct from income things like the SkyBox at the Air Canada Centre and the business lunch, less personal consumption. Isn't that funded by tax dollars and shouldn't that be accountable? Are we in a position where a mom-and-pop investor should be making a public disclosure and we need disclosure of what the restaurant down the street pays its waitress?

I'm a lawyer. I'm a member of a professional association. I can't practise law unless I'm in and paying. I have no choice. As a steamfitter—I'm also a steamfitter—I can be a union steamfitter or a non-union steamfitter. There are no non-union steamfitters.

Business organizations, advocacy groups, the Merit Contractors Association, LabourWatch, and the other interrelated groups that are in favour of this are asking you to have us do something they're not prepared to do themselves. Who's asking for this? There are no union members chafing in chains and saying, “Give us the disclosure the union won't give us.” The only people asking for this are the Merit Contractors, LabourWatch, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a group of interrelated, non-union-supportive employers.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the Canadian Bar Association, please.

[Michael Mazzuca, Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association. The CBA is a national association representing over 37,000 lawyers from across Canada. The association's primary objectives include improvement in the law and in the administration of justice, and it is with this perspective that we have examined Bill C-377. It's important to note as well that the CBA not only has regional representation but also tries to ensure that different perspectives are taken into account.

I am the chair of the national pension and benefits law section. We try to ensure that our executive not only has members from across the country but also has individuals who represent different types of clients. We have members on our executives who represent corporate interests, who represent pension funds, who are in-house at pension plans or consulting firms, and who represent members.

The submissions that were put before you have been supported and drafted by all members of our executive committee. Having looked at the bill, the CBA submits that the bill should not be passed into law due to a number of concerns, which are set out more fully in our written submissions.

We have highlighted four primary concerns. We have already heard some discussion about some of those earlier today. One overriding concern we have is a constitutional law concern. The Canadian charter enshrines and protects Canadians' freedom of expression and freedom of association. Bill C-377 would impose upon labour organizations and labour trusts, both defined terms under the bill, very substantive and, some would say, onerous reporting requirements and detailed statements.

These are not, as we've heard earlier, the same as those with respect to charities. These are not aggregate amounts that need to be reported; the way the bill is currently framed would require that information about transactions be recorded, including payer, payee, the purpose of the transaction, and a description of the transaction itself.

To the extent that this in any way places a restriction on individual Canadians' freedom of expression and freedom of association, the CBA believes that such a restriction would place the bill at risk of a charter challenge. Also the bill itself does not, on its face, set out a justification for these infringements.

Secondly, the CBA has in our submissions highlighted a number of privacy concerns. Since, under the bill, details such as payer, payee, names, and addresses would need to be reported, and to the extent that the bill requires the reporting and making publicly available of details of salary benefits for all officers, directors, trustees, and employees, we believe that it would infringe upon privacy concerns and existing privacy laws.

The bill also requires the disclosure of some of the most sensitive information relating to individual Canadians' political activities and beliefs, and again we believe that's inappropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have about 30 seconds, please.