Evidence of meeting #8 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was unions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
May 2nd, 2016 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
I can't respond to...?
Okay. Then I will ask this question.
Were you aware the previous government had a document—which became evident from other witness testimony—that showed that the card check system was actually a lot better than the secret vote? Were you aware of that study?
4:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Not until the minister came before this committee.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
The previous government chose not display this, to hide it. Why do you think they would hide a document like this?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
All right. Now we're moving some place.
Earlier the president of the CFIB came in and talked about the award for the most cumbersome paperwork, which is what would happen with this report. Do you think—based on what you said, Mr. Yussuff, that this was based on the American concept—that asking our unions to complete a document of anywhere from 300 to 600 pages would be fair?
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
The previous government very much touted their desire to cut red tape and not to impose a cost on Canadians. It was a mystery to me why they would be tabling legislation that would require more red tape and thousands of pieces of paper to be filed by unions in complying with the law.
More importantly, of course, for the CRA to meet the requirements of the law and to provide the information publicly on the website would cost the government millions of dollars. I think you may remember that former finance minister Jim Flaherty came out and said it was going to cost the government millions of dollars, only for the government to get mad at him and him to revise his estimate and say that it would not be that much after all. We never did find out what the true cost would be of putting all of the requirements in Bill C-377 on a public website.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Mr. Mazzuca, I'm having a hard time understanding how we heard of nobody who actually wanted this in the first place. I don't understand that.
With what you've expressed from the Canadian Bar Association—and you were against this—why do you think the previous government did not even listen to your recommendations? What reason do you think they had for that?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Member, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
I certainly can't speak to what their intentions were.
What I can say is that we made submissions to the House committee and appeared before the Senate twice. In fact, we gave very detailed submissions in opposition to the bill. We also stated that if the bill were to proceed, here was a list of the types of labour trusts that should be exempt to make sure that the ambit of the bill was curtailed. All I can say is that we made those submissions and they certainly were not heeded.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Executive Member, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
There are about 36,000.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
That's a lot of people.
You talked about your strong belief that this was a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something that we all hold dear in Canada. I am still struggling to understand how a law can be passed that so many people felt was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Could you explain again how you feel it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Member, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Well, we primarily felt that it was a violation of the freedom of association and freedom of expression because it required an inordinate amount of disclosure from unions regarding their political activity, which we've heard a fair bit about. Also, the unions operate in a bargaining situation, and if one side in the bargaining process has to disclose a lot more information than the other, it certainly puts one side at a disadvantage in that bargaining. We felt there was a violation of both freedom of association and freedom of expression that could only be justified under section 1 of the charter if there were a legitimate reason. Again, as you've heard from others, as well as me, if you looked at Bill C-377, it was not apparent what kind of justification there was for those violations.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
I just wanted to read a quote that speaks to some of the commentary by the panellists about the constitutionality of this particular Bill C-377 and Bill C-5 as well.
I was a member of Parliament when this was going through our caucus. Some weren't supportive of it; many were. I remember the proponent of Bill C-377 specifically coming and talking to us about what it would take for us to be more supportive of this particular legislation that he had moved, and amendments to it were allowed to proceed.
Understanding what the process was—and I saw it with my own two eyes—I saw how practical it really was. There really was a back and forth. I met with numerous union representatives in my office to talk about their concerns about the bill. I heard comments back that the amendments would address their concerns. Nothing was perfect; some were supportive of it. As a former union member myself, I was supportive of accountability for unions because I think it's necessary.
I just want to talk about the private members' bill process, the way it is. It goes through a process, I wouldn't necessarily say it's a strict process, but a process of constitutionality, and the bill essentially has to meet certain criteria before it's even allowed to come to the floor of the House. This bill passed that test and that particular vetting.
I'm going to also read a quote from retired Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache, who is a pretty good authority on Canadian law. It reads:
I conclude that, if Bill C-377 is enacted into law, it would likely be upheld by the courts as a valid enactment of Federal Parliament’s power over taxation under section 91(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867.… As long as the pith and substance or matter of Bill C-377 is related to taxation, the law is a valid enactment of Parliament’s powers.... Because Bill C-377 does not attempt to regulate the activities of labour organizations or determine how they spend their money, it is unlikely that a court would find that it limits freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.
What are your thoughts about that quote, Mr. Mazzuca?
4:20 p.m.
Executive Member, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
I appeared with former Justice Bastarache at the Senate hearings and I heard, first hand, his opinion. What I also know, as a lawyer, is that even amongst judges there are oftentimes dissenting opinions, and not all judges, even on the Supreme Court of Canada, are always in agreement.
I do know that many constitutional experts would disagree with former Justice Bastarache. I think you've heard from some of them, and many of them made their appearances before the earlier committees as well.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
So who's right? Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache or you, Mr. Mazzuca?
4:20 p.m.
Executive Member, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Only a court is ever going to render a decision on that.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
My point in saying that is, you even said it yourself, that there are differing opinions. I think we just saw an opinion that's supportive of the legislation. You are not in support of it, but we have some who are in support.
Mr. Therrien, you mentioned in your quote to us that we have as part of the background briefing material from the Library of Parliament that “if unions are accountable to all taxpayers, the Commissioner expressed the view that...”.
Do you believe that unions should be accountable to taxpayers, and why?
4:20 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
First of all, I think that as a policy matter, unions as well as other institutions should be accountable. To whom they should be accountable is an interesting question. In the first instance, you can easily make the case that they should be accountable to their members.
Should they be accountable to tax payers? I guess it would be along the lines of the reasoning made by Mr. Deltell, that unions receive public funds, in some ways, so that there may be a degree of accountability towards tax payers. My comments had to do—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Can I then ask a follow up-question to that? I don't have much time; I'm sorry to interrupt.
We've heard comments from Mr. Mazzuca and you...I don't know whether you said to completely repeal the other bills or to support Bill C-4, but why not support a measure of accountability that might change Bill C-377 or Bill C-525 rather than discard them entirely? Why not at least support some amendments to the existing legislation to make it more workable?
If accountability is desired, as I'm sure we could agree, why not just amend the current legislation rather than throw it out in its entirety?
4:20 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I'm commenting on the bill before you now, which is to repeal these provisions. If other amendments were before me, I wouldn't comment on what Parliament presents, but I guess accountability is certainly a factor here.
I would urge that there be a balance between measures that promote accountability and measures that respect privacy. Do you have to repeal all of the provisions? Perhaps you do not, but that's the bill that is before us.
I believe that on the whole this bill is much preferable, from a privacy perspective.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
One thing that was a big concern was the private information, with certain health care costs at a lower level. That's why there were amounts that were raised to address those concerns. There was an attempt.
I think it needs to be understood that there was a going back and forth with this legislation. It wasn't just written in stone. It was a private member's bill that solicited input that was heard and received.
Thank you.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
I didn't get enough.
Well, thank you again.
I'm still stuck on this Charter of Rights thing and on constitutionality. We're in Canada, so I think it's appropriate.
Mr. Mazzuca, in the event that Bill C-4 were not being proposed, what do you think would be the likelihood of a constitutional challenge to Bill C-377?
4:25 p.m.
Executive Member, National Pensions and Benefits Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
It's not a likelihood, but I think a certainty. We know that it was already being challenged; I believe that was in Alberta. I think that if Bill C-4 were not moving forward, there would be a number of other challenges. A number of provinces had also let it be known that they would potentially challenge it as well. Those aspects of Bill C-377 would be dragged out through the courts for many years.
