Finance Committee on Nov. 7th, 2012

[Neil Watson]

Our concerns are health and welfare benefits plans and pensions plans. As for the rest of it, there are privacy issues and other issues—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

If those issues were taken care of with amendments, would you then support it?

[Neil Watson]

Possibly.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Mortimer, do you find it ironic that Canadians can find out more about Canadian activities in unions from what's published on their websites in the U.S.? I know that was part of your testimony. Do you find it at all ironic that to find out about a union operating in Canada, as a union member or a non-union member still paying dues, I have to go down to the United States? I can find out a lot more than I can in Canada.

[John Mortimer]

Beyond that is what it proves when you look at the strength of American unions, with 13.5 million people represented, and the amount of money they raise and spend. This idea that unions would disappear off the face of Canada because there's disclosure is belied by the facts in multiple other countries around the world.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I can assure you that unions are extremely strong in my community. They have a billboard as you go into town saying that this is a union town. There are at least 40 unions up there. We are the economic engine of Canada right now, and we do a very good job supporting the unions. They are very strong. Transparency, frankly, will lead to better unions and better accountability for their members.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

We will go now to Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here.

I'm going to ask Mr. Smith to do something for me. I'm not going to ask you a specific long question. I just want you to find in the annual reports you brought with you the exact page on which you list the percentage of dollars from dues you spent on political activities. While you do that, I'll ask the other questions. Then I'll come back to you.

I want to thank the commissioner for being here. I know that you work very hard, Commissioner.

I want to examine the comments you made about the exceptional publicly disclosed salaries. “Exceptional” means that they're an exception. The truth of the matter, as I see it, with regard to funded salaries that come directly from the public is that having them disclosed is more the rule.

I am a police officer, and I'm not a high-ranking police officer. I'm just a patrol sergeant. Then there are sergeants and staff sergeants. We have inspectors and superintendents. I'm not up there. However, hundreds of us have our salaries disclosed at the municipal level. I somewhat take exception to the word “exception”, because as my colleague has indicated, this is frequent. Paramedics, firefighters, and police officers—those who are benefiting from public funds—quite frequently see their salaries being public for everyone.

I would ask, because you suggested that you'd be open to a salary level, what that salary level would be. Would it be $50,000, or $100,000? If we were to put in place a salary level, what would you suggest it be for disclosure?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I think I'd have to think about it. The salary disclosure levels are based on context, from what I can see.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Okay. If you could get back to us with that and look at it, we'd be interested in hearing about that.

Thank you. You talked about the

Steelworkers AFL-CIO. As Mr. Cuzner did, I just happen to have a copy of the American printout from the Steelworkers AFL-CIO, and in it we have information on Canadian officials, because by law they have to report. I note that the salary and disbursements of the national director for Canada are listed.

Then of great interest to me on this page was the representational activities, which make up 33%. The political activities and lobbying make up 33%, and administration makes up 33%. What was of great interest to me was that when I looked at the rest of the high-level representatives, the Canadian entry was the highest in political activities and lobbying. I flipped through several pages, and political activity and lobbying activity of another vice-president is at 2%; another one is 5%, and another is 1%, but the Canadian has 33%, by far the highest. As a Canadian I'm entitled to know, and I want to know, how much unions are spending.

I'm a union member—I'm on a leave of absence—and I want to know where those dues are going when they concern political activities, so I would ask the commissioner again, why is it that Americans are allowed to have access to all this information, salaries included, and yet they don't have a privacy concern? Why do you think it's a privacy concern here and not there?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I think it's clear that Canadians value privacy very much. Our own polling tells us this. Our jurisprudence tells us this. In Canada, we balance privacy against other values.

In the United States, the dominant value is liberty, liberty in one of its variations, such as freedom of expression. Americans do not have the privacy rights that Canadians have. Indeed, they have no commercial privacy law.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Right, but that's completely different from this.

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I'm speaking to the honourable member about a culture that is very different along this path—

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Commissioner, I have to interrupt you because I have to let Mr. Smith answer this question. I understand you want to continue on another issue, and I appreciate that, but I do want....

Mr. Smith, what page is that on?

[James E. Smith]

I don't have anything here with me.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

It's not in your annual report? You said earlier that everything is readily available and you brought us all copies, yet this bill is dealing specifically with wanting to see how much is spent on lobbying and political activities.

I can tell you that I get phone calls in my office from people saying they're so glad I'm not flying first class on their dollar. I'll tell you, that fellow across the way who attacked Mr. Oakey sits in first class every time, and taxpayers are phoning me about him too. I want them to compare us. I want them to know that taxpayers' dollars are valuable—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

—so I'm surprised you don't have it, sir. If you could get it for me, I'd appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Can you get that for us, Mr. Smith?

[James E. Smith]

Can I answer the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You can, but very briefly, please.

[James E. Smith]

I pointed out in my presentation that there are two sections in this book I'm going to give you: one, we've got to get the approval of our members to spend the money; two, we've got to report back. That's in there and that's what we live by.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, and thank you, Ms. Glover.

Monsieur Boulerice, vous disposez de cinq minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are learning all kinds of fascinating things this afternoon. I would like to thank the witnesses and our colleagues opposite. I was a little surprised to hear Ms. Glover say that the purpose of the bill is to find out how much unions are spending on political activity and social campaigns. I thought that this was a bill about transparency.

My question is for all eight witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Go ahead, Ms. Glover.