Finance Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

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

As I said, if this were to have a direct impact on the operation of government, it wouldn't be an acceptable private member's bill, and I wouldn't be here today explaining the nature of the bill. The costs will have to be incurred within the current envelope of the government.

Going back to the charities and the level of disclosure, I have not ever said that the level of disclosure required under this bill is the same as it is for charities. I have used charities as an example of disclosure that has occurred for 35 years.

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

You would agree that it's significantly more.

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

I would agree that the level of disclosure required for labour organizations is different from what is required for charities, because it's a different kind of institution. You can't equate the two. I would point to the example of the United States, which has had this legislation since 1959. Canadian labour organizations affiliated with U.S. unions are currently having to disclose the same level of detail.

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

To paint the picture that there's no disclosure now I don't think is actually right. There are seven provinces that have similar legislation in place.

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

There's not disclosure to the public, though.

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

Let's go to the United States Department of Labor, since you wanted to cite the U.S. example. Could you give us a dollar figure as to what it will cost the unions?

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

As I alluded to in my opening remarks, when the enforcement provisions were brought in around a decade ago, many of the United States' labour organizations made the same complaint, which was that it was going to cost them an enormous amount of money. They added a clause to the bill forcing them to include the cost associated with complying with the legislation. When those records started to come in, the costs were far lower than was ever expected. There have been no amendments to the legislation in the last decade to address those issues.

I can give you one example.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds.

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

Don Todd, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor in the Office of Labor-Management Standards, who was responsible for administering and enforcing the legislation in the United States—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Cuzner, it is your time.

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

If you want to cite the U.S. example, the public reporting burden for the collection, under the LM-2 report cited in the U.S. Department of Labor document, is 536 hours per response. If there's anything extenuating, it's 654 hours. I would think that there would be a substantive cost for those individual locals.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you have a brief response, Mr. Hiebert?

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

It directly depends on the size of the labour organization. The example that I was given, and that I'll give to you, is that the AFL-CIO, which represents 56 unions that themselves represent 12 million unionized Americans, estimated before the change came in that it would cost them $1 million a year to comply with the new reporting requirements, but it was disclosed, as they have to, that in the first year it cost them $55,000, so it was substantially less than their original estimate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go the final questioner in this round.

Go ahead, Mr. Dykstra, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to Mr. Hiebert.

I appreciate the clarification in your opening remarks—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you have a point of order, Monsieur Caron?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Yes. You just said the “final” one...?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We're doing 30 minutes with Mr. Hiebert. Then we're bringing the organizations forward, and they're getting—

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

The reason I'm going for a point of order is that, from my understanding, the presentation should have been five minutes, and it was ten minutes. By being five minutes more than what was expected, we're losing one round of questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My understanding of the agreement was that Mr. Hiebert had ten minutes and we had one round. It was NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative for our first round.

That's my understanding of the agreement that was between all parties.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, my time starts...?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Your time starts now, Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Hiebert, you mentioned five areas of ensuring privacy. I just want to make sure we're clear on this, because it's one of the major concerns I think a lot of us have. With regard to those who are receiving health care benefits, you're asking that amendments be put forward regarding health care benefits and solicitor-client privilege and that home addresses and personal information not be listed. There was also the bill's definition in terms of preserving an element of privacy for health and pension funds.

I appreciate that. It's very helpful to understand that you're willing to do that, because I think that's an area of concern for many.

The other question I have relates to the provision you have in the bill regarding the lobbying and the estimate time. That aspect has a little bit less to do with the declaration of what finances within a union are going to particular issues and to ensuring that they will become public. Could you expand briefly on the rationale behind political activities and the estimates of lobbying being included in the bill, and why they are?