Evidence of meeting #90 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.
4:25 p.m.
President, Canadian LabourWatch Association
He did not.
The Rand formula decision is in our submission, in both languages. What's interesting is that he also said that it wasn't the right thing for all unions. He ordered this because of a problematic, dysfunctional union that needed money to mature. He said other unions would be negatively affected if they were awarded forced union dues. It's right in Justice Rand's ruling. What the Rand formula has become is not what Justice Rand intended.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Hunter—and I could put the question to Mr. Watson as well—we understand that you manage the funds for pensions. It's pretty well known, although maybe not throughout the general public, that in cases such as CP or Air Canada, the federal government is responsible for those pensions; otherwise, it's the responsibility of provinces. Probably a lot of people don't realize that when General Motors was bailed out in 2009 for, I believe, $8 billion, that money went to pensions and to legacy funds, to health responsibilities.
If that's the case, and if governments are on the hook for public pensions, doesn't the argument regarding pensions beg for more transparency rather than less transparency?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Multi-Employer Benefit Plan Council of Canada
I'm fully supportive of transparency. What I'm not fully supportive of, and MEBCO is not fully supportive of, is public disclosure of private information.
The concern we have is over the extent of the disclosure required of pension, health and welfare, and other types of benefit plans. Personal, private information would be being publicly disclosed.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I want to go back to Mr. Mortimer again.
We've heard the argument that professional organizations should be included in this transparency bill, as they receive similar tax benefits. Could you explain why this might make sense, or why not?
Maybe we could ask Ms. Kozhaya, as well, to answer the question.
4:30 p.m.
President, Canadian LabourWatch Association
Well, I don't want to repeat what the Montreal Economic Institute has already articulated.
I've been studying professional associations, and there's an incredible breadth and complexity. There are a lot of differences in how they're structured. I don't know that there's a professional association in this country that wants to be called a union. When you read the academic literature, that's one of the things it talks about. They are very different entities that serve a regulatory or quasi-regulatory purpose.
The UFCW doesn't make sure how a grocery store worker stocks employees, but the Law Society focuses on how a lawyer practises law. They're very different organizations. The bar associations do the political stuff, the non-regulatory stuff.
Those are the important differences.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Ms. Kozhaya, did you have anything to add to that?
4:30 p.m.
Director of Research and Chief Economist, Quebec Employers' Council
The main difference is the mission and goal of the two types of organizations.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Mr. Oakey, the limit for reporting transactions under the bill is $5,000, and anything less is not itemized. Do you believe that this is an appropriate level of disclosure, or should it be lower?
4:30 p.m.
President, Merit Canada
I think it creates a level playing field between labour organizations that currently operate in Canada that have to report in the United States and those that currently operate in Canada and don't have to report to their international affiliates. I think Merit Canada would support a lowering of that threshold. I think the reason the threshold is set at $5,000 is to create that level playing field between the two types of unions that operate in Canada.
However, I think the U.S. example shows us that there are a lot of $4,999 transactions that go on, and I do understand, through some of the conversations I've had with people around Washington at the time of the reforms, that it was a compromise between Congress and the White House.
I think ultimately some were pushing for all transactions. It would have been much easier for unions to comply. They would have just dumped their ledger into the government form, as opposed to having to categorize them as above $5,000 or below $5,000, so there are actually some administrative arguments that there shouldn't be a threshold and that it should be all transactions.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.
Ms. Nash is next, please.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
I just want to clarify for the witnesses and for anybody watching the testimony today that we have not received any amendments on this bill, or even any written notice of amendments, so we are dealing with the bill as Mr. Hiebert has introduced it. While many witnesses have indicated that they understand there are amendments, we have not seen notice of amendments or seen actual amendments to this bill.
The goal that we understand with the bill is one of transparency. It is ironic that the government is putting forward a bill on transparency when the Parliamentary Budget Officer is indicating he may well have to go to court to get transparency and financial information from this government.
Nevertheless, we're dealing with this bill. It concerns union members, and contrary to what some have said, which is that unions are not voluntary organizations, I want to make the point that they are voluntary organizations and that individuals can choose not to become members. However, because they get the benefits of the union, under the Rand formula they are still required to pay dues. The group can decide not to belong to the union and to decertify, so it can be a group voluntary decision as to whether or not to join a union, just to correct the record.
Unions, of course, are already required to disclose quite a bit of information. Many file their collective agreements and file financial statements. I notice that many of you may know each other and you're on each other's boards, but I notice, for example, Mr. Oakey, that I don't see the members of your board of directors listed on the website, so I don't know how much disclosure there is there.
Let me turn to Ms. Stoddart.
If the goal is to make unions more accountable to their members, to the individuals who pay dues to the union, can you clarify for us, because of the very serious privacy concerns you have raised with this bill, whether you believe it would be better for the objectives of the bill to provide limited individual reporting, or aggregate reporting? Which would be a better solution, again recognizing we've received no proposed amendments for this bill?
4:35 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Both have advantages, I would say. Certainly aggregate reporting focuses in less on the individual, but as I've said and as another honourable member has mentioned, for certain people in positions of leadership who are recipients of more money or have expense accounts and so on, it has been thought that there could be a threshold that would cover just the high earners.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
But you have said, and I just want to clarify this point, that having to include the names, salaries, personal information, and any disbursements above $5,000 is a concern and potentially a privacy violation. Is that what you're saying?
4:35 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I think it would be ideal if you were to say there were six people who earn over this amount in a certain union. I don't think you have to mention them.
I think the members, or indeed the public, because there is that argument about tax expenditures, get an idea of what's happening without knowing what the person makes.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Watson or Mr. Hunter, does it strike you as problematic that this bill could force investment funds to publicly reveal their strategies? Do you think it's inappropriate for landlords or consultants or office equipment suppliers to have their contracts with unions made public? Does it strike you as appropriate that a law would require that?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Portfolio Manager, Senior Partner, Leith Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd.
From our perspective, it's extremely problematic. We're basically going to put our investment strategies on a public website. We could be accumulating stocks; people could trade ahead of us, put up the price of the stock, and ultimately lower the investment returns for the pension plans we're managing.
The other thing is that it may deter some investment managers from even bidding on pension plans that are involved with labour organizations. They may choose not to submit a request for proposal simply because that information will be published. It's very problematic.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I begin, I want to clarify the record. Ms. Nash said just a moment ago that individuals do not have to pay union dues if they're not so inclined. That's not true. All members of a bargaining unit have to pay union dues; they are compulsory. I want to clean up the record on that.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
My point of order is that the member opposite is stating the opposite of what I said. I said that membership was voluntary, but that dues were compulsory.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Order.
Points of order deal with procedure, so if there's something procedural to raise, that's fine. However, this is a point of debate, and the member can clarify it in a later round.
I'll go back to Mr. Adler.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you.
Being as objective as I am on this, I want to come to understand a few things. I can understand the purpose of trade unions. Nobody is disputing the fact that trade unions are necessary. Trade unions, like corporations, are legitimate instruments of society, but there is one thing I don't understand. Australia, France, Germany, the U.K., New Zealand, the Unites States, and even MPs, senators, all levels of government, publicly traded companies, charities, foundations—all these entities have to make public disclosure of how they spend their money.
Help me out here, Mr. Oakey. First, if a public disclosure is good for everybody else, why isn't it good for trade unions? Second, would this legislation restrict trade unions from engaging in the kinds of activity that they engage in right now, such as funding political lobbying and funding groups that are not associated with advancing the interest of workers? Would this bill restrict their ability to do that?