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.
5:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
I think all of those issues need to be exempted from the bill.
5:30 p.m.
Professor, Labour and Employment Relations, San Francisco State University
I think it needs to be exempted, because you're asking labour officials to report on something that they don't even control. On the face of it, it makes no sense.
5:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
If the idea would be that the pension contributions and the pension amounts that unions put into employees' pensions are exempt, I actually don't think that would be a helpful change.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
This is the last question, and I'll direct it to three people.
Is changing “record” to “estimate” any improvement? I'll ask Mr. Blakely, Mr. Mazzuca, and Mr. Georgetti.
5:30 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
No. Whatever “record“ or “estimate” is going to be will be determined in some prosecution, so....
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
I don't have a response. I really don't understand how that amendment would work.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
October 25th, 2012 / 5:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
I have the same answer.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Ms. McLeod.
I realize we're going a few minutes past.
I have a couple of questions and I'll wrap up after that.
Obviously we've been referring to the U.S. legislation, and the issue was raised that there is a difference in threshold. Mr. Logan pointed out some of the differences.
Mr. Blakely, you mentioned quickly some of the differences between the U.S. legislation and the legislation proposed by Mr. Hiebert. Can you go through those again for me?
5:30 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
One is that in the United States the trust funds, pensions, health and welfare, and those sorts of things are excluded.
5:30 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
That is the most significant difference.
5:30 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
There are some other differences, but they're differences without distinction.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay.
Mr. Mazzuca, I wanted to go to you as well.
I would certainly reinforce the comments by Mr. Dykstra. With regard to those people who oppose the bill, if there's an amendment and they feel the amendment makes the bill better, I would hope they would stay at the table. I'm glad you're willing to do that.
In terms of the impact on pension and benefit plans, can you speak a little more with respect to the definition of labour trust? Have you or your organization done any thinking with respect to what an amendment would look like? Mr. Hiebert has indicated he's open to an amendment on this, but what would that amendment look like and what would it have to address? Can you speak to that?
5:35 p.m.
Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
What it would have to address is ensuring that registered pension plans are exempt, health and welfare trusts are exempt, training trust funds are exempt, supplementary unemployment benefits are exempt, and deferred profit-sharing plans are exempt.
5:35 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Group RRSPs should be exempt as well.
5:35 p.m.
Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Yes, and group RRSPs.
I also mentioned the provincial workers compensation funds. There's such a myriad of funds that are captured by the current definition of trust funds that once we start exempting all of these entities I've started to list—and it's certainly not an exhaustive list—what's the purpose of that definition any longer? Why don't we simply take that definition out and have this simply apply to labour organizations?
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Are you saying to take the whole definition of labour trust out?