Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank our many witnesses and guests for being here today and delivering such interesting presentations.
This committee has begun to show that this bill contains too many flaws to be passed, that it would cause major collateral damage, and that it even threatens Canada's economic health during these fragile times. This bill is clearly useless, discriminatory, unconstitutional, costly and excessively bureaucratic.
It is useless because unions are accountable first and foremost to their members, and the requirement for transparency already exists. I would point out to everyone that that requirement is in section 110 of the Canada Labour Code.
It is discriminatory because it targets only unions and pension funds and trusts associated with unionized workers, but it does not cover other organizations in our society that benefit from tax advantages granted by the federal government.
It is unconstitutional. Here, I am referring to statements by the Canadian Bar Association, which raised this significant concern last week.
It is costly. Last week, Professor Logan explained to us that, in the United States, dealing with less onerous reporting requirements than those in Mr. Hiebert's bill cost the federal government $6.5 million.
It is excessively bureaucratic because of the enormous amount of paperwork and the administrative burden that the organizations, trusts and pension funds affected by this bill would have to deal with. This is an example of big government.
That's not all. This bill is also intrusive. It is a threat to privacy and personal information. For example, if a retired union member is collecting pension benefits, his name and address, along with transaction amounts could be disclosed to the public on a website. Information about a firefighter who is disabled due to a work-related accident, including his name, health information, address and income, could be disclosed to the public.
My question is for the Privacy Commissioner.
What impact do you think this bill will have on the private lives of the individuals it is likely to affect? Does it raise serious issues with respect to the Privacy Act?