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.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
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—
5:10 p.m.
NDP
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
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.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
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.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
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.
5:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Well, that is how the rounds are set up—for proportionality, right?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
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.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I started asking a question. May I at least finish it?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
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.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
NDP
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?
5:15 p.m.
President, Canadian LabourWatch Association
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.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
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?
November 7th, 2012 / 5:15 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
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.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
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.
5:15 p.m.
Portfolio Manager, Senior Partner, Leith Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd.
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.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
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?
5:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Canada, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
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.