Finance Committee on Nov. 7th, 2012

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I'm just confused, Chair. I believe the round is finished, so I'm wondering why Mr. Boulerice is starting a new round—

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

Because we still have time available.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

—because the committee hasn't decided whether we're starting a second round or not. It doesn't appear we're going to have time to do one.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My understanding was that we're going to deal with motions at the end, that all three parties have agreed to deal with motions very quickly.

I have one question I'd like to ask, so I was going to give Mr. Boulerice a round and then I would take a round.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Then we would get a round again? I ask because if we don't have time for a second round, I'd rather not start one. I'd rather just go to your question and then go to the motions, if possible.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Well, that is how the rounds are set up—for proportionality, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Chairs can technically ask questions at any time. My traditional practice was to go to the NDP and then take the next round myself, but if the committee wants to go to motions now, we can.

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

I think we can continue to do our work.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Does the committee want to go to motions now?

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

I started asking a question. May I at least finish it?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I just assumed you had a question to deal with, Mr. Chair, and that would complete the round. If we start another round, it's only fair that the Conservatives also have time, which won't leave us time for the motions. I'm trying to be as fair as possible, based on what the committee has done.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, I will do an NDP round and then a Conservative round.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Very good. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.

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

Thank you.

My question is for all eight witnesses, but you do not all have to respond.

Can any of you confirm that implementing Mr. Hiebert's bill will not cost Canadian taxpayers anything?

[John Mortimer]

I think when we lay out the union dues that are not being lawfully deducted and tax expenditures go up, this will be a revenue-positive thing for the Canadian taxpayer. Hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes are going uncollected because union dues are being unlawfully claimed on tax returns, and unionized Canadians have no information from their unions to know how to properly complete their tax returns based on the T4 slips.

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

Fortunately, thanks to our laws, Canadian workers have information about their own union dues. What we are looking for is transparency.

Madam Commissioner, I have a question for you. Do you think that this bill's provisions specifically violate Canada's privacy acts and regulations?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

They do not specifically violate the law because the Privacy Act protects public sector employees. The bill would apply to organizations. No specific law applies to unionized workers at the federal level. There are provincial laws.

However, it is clear to me that if there is no privacy amendment, substantive issues could be raised.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Watson, I have a question for you. This bill targets you. Earlier, you talked about how it would affect you.

However, I would like to know how many contracts or transactions worth over $5,000 you, as a pension and retirement fund manager, carry out every year. I would like to know what kind of burden this legislation would place on your office and how it will affect your ability to do your work.

[Neil Watson]

We do thousands of transactions for the various portfolios we manage. We manage about 150 different portfolios, so significant costs would be placed on our organization, but I think the bigger cost will actually be on the pension plan side.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

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

Mr. Smith, during their testimony, representatives of the Canadian Bar Association said that they believed this bill is a solution to a non-existent problem. They said that they do not understand what problem this bill is meant to solve.

Knowing that there were 4.2 million unionized workers in Canada last year, and that there were only six complaints about access to information on spending and union financial reports, what do you think is the real purpose of this bill given that there do not actually seem to be any problems?

[James E. Smith]

First of all, on the complaints that are financial, I do get some. The ones I hear are, “You're giving me too much paper. Save the trees”. I believe in giving as much information as possible, and that's truly what I've heard many times: “Why so much paper? Why so much information?”

As for the true objective of this, my eyes are opened wide today, because the Rand formula is what it's all about.