I don't understand—
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.
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.
5:35 p.m.
Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
I don't understand—
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Are you saying to take the whole definition of labour trust out because you would need to have so many exemptions to that definition?
5:35 p.m.
Chair, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Correct.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I appreciate that.
I have just one final question, then.
In your brief, Mr. Georgetti, you talk about the Income Tax Act, and obviously the argument Mr. Hiebert is making is that there is a tax benefit there.
Mr. Blakely may not like the legislation; he has indicated that he's a lawyer and a steamfitter, so if it were applied to professional associations, would they actually see this as fair because it's using the Income Tax Act argument? If a piece of legislation said that, would you be more supportive of that legislation?
October 25th, 2012 / 5:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Mr. Rajotte, we'd have a lot tougher time arguing if it applied to everybody, but the fact that it doesn't makes us very suspicious about the intent of the legislation and the purpose of the legislation.
I don't think the Income Tax Act is the vehicle to be regulating and overseeing the affairs of us or anyone else, but I want to keep on my point.
Other than the fact that we are called unions, we are private organizations owned by our members, who happen to get a tax benefit for their contributions. They have a right to make their own determinations and they don't have to be scrutinized by anyone else. I don't think the CFIB or my friend here, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, should be scrutinized by anybody but the people who make contributions to their organizations. It's a fundamental principle, and if you go down that road, how far down the road do you go?
As Mr. Blakely said, you've given $13 billion of tax concessions to business and you haven't created very many jobs. Should you scrutinize that?
5:35 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
5:35 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
I think you should, but you don't.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, my time is up.
I would agree with the last part. You've been learning from members around the table that you ask the tough question at the end.
I appreciate all of you being here. I want to thank you for—
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We thank our witnesses very much for being here, and also Mr. Logan for joining us. I believe Mr. Kelly has already departed, but thank you so much for your contributions.
Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Cuzner.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Chairman, you ran a great meeting today, but for the benefit of the committee, my last question to Mr. Kelly wasn't whether he can provide the information that would coincide with the information being looked at through this legislation, but whether he will provide that information. To that end, could I ask the clerk to address a letter to CFIB requesting the information?
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The committee can make the request of CFIB on your behalf and on all members' behalf, just to clarify that for you.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative