Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

My Exchange with Senator Eaton on Bill C-377 (Union Transparency Bill): Part Two

by David Doorey March 15, 2013
written by David Doorey March 15, 2013

 
Last week, I posted an exchange I had with Senator Eaton relating to Bill C-377.  This is the  private members’s Bill being pushed through the Parliamentary system by the Conservatives requiring unions to prepare a long list of forms describing eatontheir disbursements and activities, which would then be compiled, monitored, and posted on government run websites.
Here is the original exchange.
I understood the Senator to be suggesting that Bill C-377 would simply impose requirements on unions that already apply to charities and other such organizations.  I responded by pointing out neither charities nor any other organization in Canada is required to disclose anything near what Bill C-377 requires of unions.  This raises the question then of why it is only unions that are singled out by the Bill.

In the interests of completeness, this post displays the follow up exchange between Senator Eaton and myself.
 

 
My reply:
Dear Senator Eaton:
Thank you for your follow up letter in relation to Bill C-377. Once again, thank
you for your engagement on this issue.
My interpretation of what Bill C-377 would require differs from yours, but that
will be sorted out by the courts.  The Bill is far from a model of legislative
clarity.
However, my main point remains the same. I, and many other commentators, believe
that this Bill is little more than a government targeting one of its political
foes for special harassment, at excessive cost to taxpayers like me. In your
follow up letter, you acknowledge that Bill C-377 would impose far more onerous
disclosure requirements than is required of charities.  Therefore, we now appear
to agree that the argument the Conservatives have made to justify this Bill,
that the Bill would bring unions into line with existing rules on transparency
by charities, is false. It would do not such thing.
With respect, your argument that the charities’ laws are old is no answer.
Update them then, and sweep in all organizations that receive taxpayer
benefits: corporations, charities, non-profits, religious organizations,
professional associations.  If the Conservative claim is to be taken seriously,
and all organizations that receive taxpayer benefits should be required to show
taxpayers how they spend their money, then do that. Simply extend Bill C-377 to
all organizations.
However, I haven’t heard one Conservative argue that any other organization
should be subject to the onerous red tape that is Bill C-377. I apologize if
you have made that argument. If so, perhaps you could send me your comments.
If you haven’t argued that, then could you explain why?  This would be the
logical conclusion if you are indeed just pushing for greater transparency of
taxpayer subsidized organizations, and not interested in singling out unions
for special, adverse treatment.
I appreciate your claim that you are a transparency advocate.  I too am a
supporter of principled, balanced, and cost-effective transparency laws.  This
Bill is none of those things. It will cost taxpayers like me tens of millions
of dollars that could better be used to fund health care and education and
other useful public goods and services. Where are the Conservatives’
priorities?  The benefits of disclosure regulation must offset the costs of
administrating the law. Bill C-377 falls far short of this common sense
standard.
That is the most galling thing about this Bill. It is taxpayers like me that are
forced to fund this Conservative lark that will produce thousands of pages of
information that might occasionally be useful to antiunion corporate lobby
groups like The Fraser Institute and employers preparing for collective
bargaining, but that is completely useless to “the public”.
To the millions of lost taxpayer dollars being diverted to maintain the huge
administrative bureaucracy this Bill will require we need to add the expense of
defending the Bill in courts against obvious Constitutional and privacy
challenges that will follow. And for what ends? How is the average Canadian
made better off by burying unions in administrative red tape?  Would not every
Canadian taxpayer be better off if the tens of millions of dollars this Bill
will syphon from public coffers were spent on health care or education, or on
collecting the millions of unpaid taxes owing to taxpayers right now? That is
one of Senator Segal’s main points. The answer is obvious.
In any event, thank you for your engagement. I will be watching your speeches in
the future, looking for arguments in favour of greater transparency by
corporations and other organizations, and not just unions. I also look forward
to your public opposition to the Conservative’s “Right to Work” bill, which
will be the next shoe to drop in their ongoing effort to weaken their political
foes.
Sincerely,
Professor David Doorey

3 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Law of Work App Now Available
next post
Mitigating Wrongful Dismissal Damages After Evans v. Teamsters

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.