Human Resources Committee on March 21st, 2016

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

This one is a registered charity information return from the Canada Revenue Agency. This is the standard non-profit return, which is still a bit heavy in the documentation. It would have fulfilled the requirements presented in Bill C-377.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

So you are saying one is fair and the other one is onerous. Are you suggesting then that under Bill C-4 we use the smaller model?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I'm suggesting that red tape is not good, and I'm big on streamlining regulations. Having been in small business, I can tell you that these kinds of forms are time-consuming and take up a lot of resources. I'm not even saying that these 20 or however many pages are easy to fill out.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Minister, then why were you using that as an example? I thought that was your example of fairness. So you're suggesting fairness is nothing. Is that correct?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

This document is what is required of non-profit organizations. This was potentially what the past Conservative government intended unions to present. This is exactly why it's not fair. In fact, I am in favour of fairness and balance—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Minister, was Bill C-377 a government bill or was it a private member's bill?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Can we let the minister finish answering the question?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Well, I have limited time, Chair, and so I'm—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I understand, and we're going to—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Minister, you said it was a Conservative government bill. In fact, it was a private member's bill by Russ Hiebert. He was number one in the last Parliament, and Ted Falk is number one in this Parliament. Being number one is very important. It took him four years to get it through, and in those four years, there was lots of debate and lots of consultation. It was not a government bill. It was a private member's bill. I was fortunate enough to get number 79 in the last Parliament and was fortunate enough to introduce.... It's a lot of work and it's very important. You represent your community. Mr. Hiebert, who is no longer an MP since he didn't run again, worked very hard for four years to get that through. There was a lot of consultation.

You touched on the importance of consultation, that fair, balanced, and evidence-based policies must be developed through real consultation and engagement. You also went on to say that you're firmly committed to meaningful engagement with unions. You mentioned that—and I'm proud to have been a member of a union—and then you went on to say that you want to consult meaningfully with employers, other stakeholders, provinces, territories, and the Canadian public. Russ Hiebert spent four years.

Bill C-4 has been one of the pilot pieces of legislation from the Liberal government. Could you tell us how this is creating jobs, since that's your number one mandate? What did the consultations look like? Did you consult with more than unions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Very briefly, Minister.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

We consulted with millions of Canadians. We indicated right from the start of the election that these two bills were not only punitive, but they also were not required. They caused unfairness to the relationship between business and unions.

During the election in 2015, Canadians spoke out against an agenda of attack on unions and workers in Canada, and voted for change.

Yes, we consulted with the provinces. Even more importantly, we consulted with Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Mr. Ruimy.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Speaking to my colleague on the other side, what concerns did you have that the reporting requirements found in Bill C-377 interfered with the internal operations of labour organizations or actually even forced unions to disclose information that would disadvantage them during collective bargaining?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

By giving employers access to unions' financial information, including strike funds, without requiring employers to reciprocate, the reporting requirements included in Bill C-377 could upset the existing labour relations balance and disadvantage unions in the collective bargaining process.

If two parties are at the table, there are certain measures you wish to hold confidential if you're in a bargaining situation, and that includes how much you have in your strike fund, or how much you have in your replacement worker fund. This information is confidential. The bill would have made it not so, and therefore, significantly negatively impacted the unions in their ability to negotiate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Mr. Sangha.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Is the union certification and decertification process different at the provincial and federal levels?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Do we want to come back to that one? We can move on to another question.

Ms. Tassi.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Minister, the past two privacy commissioners raised serious concerns about the information that Bill C-377 requires. Mrs. Jennifer Stoddard said, “Requiring the names of all individuals earning or receiving more than $5,000, as well as the amounts they receive, to be published on a website, is a serious breach of privacy.” The current commissioner, Mr. Therrien, said that the bill goes too far.

The president of the Canadian Police Association, Tom Stamatakis, said that he was deeply concerned for his police officers and their safety, and security if this information was to be released.

Do you agree with the comments that were made, and do you have concerns about the amount of private information that would be revealed because of Bill C-377?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Absolutely. The disclosure of salaries is one of those controversial issues.

We used to have a radio station in Winnipeg that would read out on the radio to a million people the salary of every government civil servant. Not only was it difficult for those individuals, but it also caused strife within the workplace itself.

We're much more sensitive to privacy now and the fact that what we make, for the most part, is confidential. It seriously impacts, obviously, work sites, which I'm familiar with, personal lives, and relationships within families. This legislation would have caused much more disharmony, a situation which was clearly not required, did not benefit labour relations in any way, which was punitive, and looked to seemingly want to cause trouble for unions.

The privacy commissioners raised the issue; our provinces raised the issue, and individual Canadians felt it was outrageous. So, yes, I agree that disclosing that kind of information for anything over $5,000 is completely unwarranted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Do we have a follow-up with the previous question? If not, we'll move on.

Just very briefly, about 30 seconds.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

All right.

Yes, there are a number of different jurisdictions. They're different across the provinces, so we have put together the fact that, depending on the triggering vote, it varies. For Alberta, it's at 40%. B.C. is 45%. Manitoba is 40%. New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Ontario are 40%. For P.E.I., it's at the discretion of the labour relations board. Quebec is 35%. Saskatchewan is 45%. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing with us today.

I have three questions and I'll try to get through them all.

I'll start with a statement you made that organizations “provide financial statements to their members upon request and free of charge”. You said that this is something that's available now. Why then would it be onerous to do that publicly? It's the same information, so why would it be onerous?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

What was required in the bill was much more onerous than what is available at the present time. Something of this size not only caused enormous administrative headaches for any organization, but it also was far more than what CRA would recommend, and in fact it would have ended up costing us $2 million a year.

Information that's available to the members is provided by unions, and that's the standard. I don't think there's any requirement to make it anything else.