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.
5 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Is there anything that would actually protect the safety of those police officers? I understand it also applies to retired police officers. Is there anything that would protect those people from retaliation or anything like that?
5 p.m.
Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
There isn't, not on the face of the bill as it is currently drafted.
5 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Blakely, this question is also in terms of how this bill applies to people.
We are talking about defending workers' rights. Is there any benefit to disclosing people's salary conditions, a secretary's, for example?
5 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
With respect to making things better for a trade union, I can see no public purpose whatsoever in having my secretary's salary on the public web for the world to see.
5 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
In your answer to Mr. Dykstra, you mentioned a problem…
There was an issue regarding fairness. This applies to unions, but it is not balanced. Could you expand on that?
5:05 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
The deduction for union dues is in the same section of the Income Tax Act as professional fees. I am a lawyer. I have to pay my bar fees, or I cannot work. I am also a steamfitter. I can be a union steamfitter or a non-union steamfitter. It's my choice.
If the unions have to disclose, why don't the professional associations, which must get exactly the same tax-funded status as the unions, have to disclose? Why wouldn't an employer's association, which has exactly the same funding structure and the same tax break, not have to disclose?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Georgetti, we've mentioned that this might cost $6.5 million a year, or more, and $160 million a year for the unions. Do you think it is a good time, in terms of a fragile economy, to spend that much money on that front?
5:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Of course not, because it serves no purpose.
I would also like to point out, from some of the evidence, that we have almost the same number of unions in Canada covered by the LM-2 in the United States. The cost to us, as unions, to compile this information and to CRA to collect it, enforce it, and publish it is going to be enormous at a time when we can better use these resources elsewhere.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the witnesses, as well, for being here.
I am going to start off by correcting the record, for anyone who is confused. This is not a government bill. This is a private member's bill that I am happy to discuss.
I am a proud member of the Winnipeg Police Service. I have been a union member for almost 19 years, and I have heard concerns about this many times. I am very happy that Mr. Hiebert has addressed the concerns Mr. Mai brought up by proposing that amendments be made. I am happy to hear that.
I intend to return to a unionized workplace when I am done here in politics, so I have what you would call skin in the game. I want to make sure that as we're discussing this with all of you, everything comes out on the table.
Mr. Georgetti, I'm sorry, but I have to correct some of the things you said. You said that there have been no problems with regard to unions and perhaps some of their accounting practices. Most recently, and you are well aware of this, there were illegal contributions made by unions to NDP conventions in the amount of over $340,000. They were caught.
This is something that is very well known. It is something that has caused angst for me, as a former union member, and for you and your union members, because it's not right. It doesn't fall within the parameters, and it was deemed illegal.
Other suggestions that there are no other complaints are also not correct, Mr. Georgetti. Let me just point out, if you would allow me to, through you, Chair, something that really is disturbing. There was a unionized worker who spent thousands of dollars, and there have been several of them, trying to battle their own unions to get information from their accounts. Let me read from Chris Vander Doelen. He is a CAW member.
And as a member of the CAW myself, I've had my own ideological hankering for years to know exactly where my dues are being spent, any time I want, without asking.
Under the current system, rank and file union members rarely hear financial disclosures of any kind, or have to go, cap in hand, begging to their local for what should be a basic right.
There is another one. In B.C., the United Food and Commercial Workers union fought their workers in multiple labour relations board and court hearings in a bid to deny them five years of financial statements. The case raged on for years. When it was finally decided in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, it came to light that the financial statements for 2002 through to 2007 weren't even compiled until the end of 2007 and early 2008.
I just want us to be very honest as we are discussing this. Yes, we have concerns, and absolutely, I'm glad that we're in a setting where we can make amendments, and we are looking for your advice on this aspect.
Mr. Thomas, you have some knowledge about the case in B.C., I believe. Is that accurate?
October 25th, 2012 / 5:10 p.m.
Federal and Ontario Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
I believe I read published reports about it, but I'm not a labour practitioner and I don't have any expert knowledge to offer.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Okay.
Mr. Georgetti, I'm going to allow you to respond to the things that I've said about these cases. What I said is true, in fact. Those cases are in fact true, are they not?
5:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Let me respond quickly, Mr. Chair.
First of all, the contributions that you refer to were deemed inappropriate advertising. We were told by Elections Canada that advertising was allowed. We did it in good conscience, and when it was deemed inappropriate, the money was returned.
I want to be on record. We were the first group in Canada to advance the argument for election financing. We stand by that. We stay by it. When Elections Canada said, “You shouldn't have done that”, the NDP gave the money back. We took it back—
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
I appreciate that, Mr. Georgetti, and I don't want to take anything away from you on that, but it does demonstrate a problem, and that's why we—
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Can you answer the question? Mr. Georgetti, it's my time, and I would like you to answer the two questions that I've posed.
5:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
You have to let me answer them, then.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
You're about to do your message again, and I really want you to answer my question.
5:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
All of our books are audited. There's legislation that exists in both Ontario and British Columbia that says union members have the right to access the finances of their union. Our constitution, to belong to our Canadian Labour Congress—
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
I'm sorry to interrupt. My question was, are these cases accurate? Are you aware of the CAW and the United Food Workers cases?
