Human Resources Committee on May 2nd, 2016

[John Mortimer]

Our board is publicly disclosed and consists of Restaurants Canada, the Retail Council of Canada, Conseil du Patronat du Québec, the CFIB—

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

So you have no employee representation on your board.

[John Mortimer]

No. We have employers who can speak on behalf of their employees, sir, because there is no one speaking for employees. It's the same as the tripartite commission—

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

You have no employee representation on your board; yet you say you advance employee rights.

[John Mortimer]

That's right, sir, we do, and we do a great job at it. That's why we won at the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of Jeff Birch and April Luberti.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you, Mr. Long.

We are now moving on to Ms. Benson, please.

Are you sure you want to jump into this?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'll just calm things down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'd appreciate it.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

I have a couple of introductory points, and then I will have some comments to Mr. Wudrick, just around that whole important issue of balancing transparency with privacy, which I agree with you is an important conversation. We started that bit with the witnesses who came before.

I noticed that people have commented, concerning releasing information in France, that there's more transparency. What we also know is that information that France releases is aggregated, so there was a conversation around being able to protect people's privacy and still have transparency.

The matter of wanting to talk about it doesn't mean you're against transparency or against accountability. That's what, unfortunately, clouded this conversation, and it clouded the last conversation.

You have legislation that I feel needs to be removed. My comment to you is that we've heard from employers within the private sector who are very concerned about their privacy, the privacy of the information that would need to be disclosed, which would actually allow their competitors access to private information within their organization in a tendering process. You brought up—and I appreciate it, and it's what we're hearing from the Privacy Commissioner—that you need to be able balance those two.

Can you talk about what that balance would look like?

[Aaron Wudrick]

I'd say a couple of things. One is that we don't need to accept that this bill is perfect in order to say that maybe the best thing isn't to throw the whole thing out. I would agree that the bill isn't perfect, as I did when I spoke to it when it came before the Senate committee with the previous government.

I would welcome a discussion about ways in which we address some of those concerns. One of them is, as you say, that if there's information being provided that is too granular, a way to do so is to move to a higher threshold or an aggregate level of disclosure, which then becomes less commercially sensitive.

The other thing I would say is that, for organizations for which privacy is far more paramount and for which it's very important that they keep information private, there's a simple solution. That is to refuse the tax benefit that is attached to these provisions.

Our organization is a perfect example of that.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'm sorry. Just let me clarify.

I'm talking about employers, not unions. I'm talking about private industry; that because of their participation in training funds, in trusts, in pensions, in benefits, such information would be disclosed to their competitors as a result of the bill that is in front of us that we're trying to repeal, Bill C-377.

[Aaron Wudrick]

Do you mean because of the measures relating to the Income Tax Act?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Yes.

[Aaron Wudrick]

Okay, I'm a little confused about the distinction here.

My point is that an organization that is more concerned about privacy, for whatever reason, has the right to forgo the benefits that can flow to them under the Income Tax Act.

We are one such group. We have supporters who work for unions, who work in the public sector, who may worry that their employer might find out that they contribute to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, so we protect their identity.

The tradeoff is that we cannot issue them a tax receipt. If we wanted to raise more money, we could release their names so that we might raise more money, but we would be putting them at risk, and so we choose not to do that.

That is the example that we give to others; that if it is paramount to them that they have privacy, they can forgo special treatment under the Income Tax Act.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you for your comments about at least being open to the fact that we need different levels of information. Just using the word “transparency” and being transparent doesn't mean anything unless it has some value and unless it's giving you information but also protecting the interests of private individuals.

I think the bill is so flawed that there's nowhere to go, and the issue about private, commercial entities having confidential, business-related information released was a real concern. That's why we've had witnesses from all areas—employers, unions, privacy advocates, lawyers—because there was a real concern. I think that we're often just using the words “we want to be accountable”.

The last thing I want to mention is that aggregate information is audited financial statements; that's aggregate information about an organization's financial statements. Many unions post those publicly, including the Public Service Alliance of Canada; it is on their website.

I wonder whether you would like to comment on that kind of information. Many of us, including business and the non-profit sector, use that information as a good way to find out what an organization is doing, what's important to them, where their investments are, and whether they're doing what they say they do, as a way to share information with either the public or with union members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

I'm afraid she hasn't left you any time, unless you have a very quick answer.

[Aaron Wudrick]

I would simply say that aggregate is certainly better than nothing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

We go to Ms. Tassi, please.

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

My first few questions are for Mr. Wudrick.

Many supporters of Bill C-377 are employer groups, such as Merit, CFIB, and LabourWatch. They are tax-exempt, non-profit organizations that are funded by members' dues that are tax-deductible, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars per year in lost tax revenues. Merit, which is viewed as one of the chief architects behind the bill, had VIP access to the previous PMO and ministers' offices, influencing the policy on Bill C-377.

Do you believe these organizations should have to publicly disclose their financials in a similar way to what is required under Bill C-377?

[Aaron Wudrick]

I would say that if the organizations are in fact receiving a tax benefit that is comparable, yes, I would absolutely think so.

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

So, in the case of groups such as Merit, CFIB, and LabourWatch, which are receiving a tax benefit that is comparable, you would say that you would support their having the same requirements as were required under Bill C-377?

[Aaron Wudrick]

For us, the trigger for transparency flows from the benefit that one receives from the taxpayer subsidy. If that same benefit is also received by another organization, we would apply the same principle, so yes.

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

So if I were to say to you that the benefit is the same, you would say yes, that you are in agreement.

[Aaron Wudrick]

Yes.

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

Would you encourage the government or private members to introduce legislation for any organizations that receive the same benefit?