The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Senate Votes to Delay Anti-Union Private Member Bill C-377

by David Doorey June 26, 2013
written by David Doorey June 26, 2013

An uprising of sorts by Tory and Liberal Senators today has delayed the passage of a ridiculous private member’s bill (Bill C-377) designed to bury unions in bureacratic red tape. I have discussed the Bill on several occassions, so I won’t go through it again. 
Senators voted today in favour of amendments to the Bill introduced by outspoken critic of the Bill, Senator Hugh Segal.  The amendments proposal succeeded only because Tory Senators either voted for the amendments or chose to abstain from voting.  This is surely a victory for those who believe that the Senate could act as a sober second thought, at least when it comes to pointless Bills intended to achieve nothing more than harassment of a political foe at great expense to taxpayers.
hiebertThe brainchild of Bill C-377 is a Tory MPP named Russ Hiebert.  Today’s vote is a massive embarassment for this guy, since the Tories have a majority.  Hiebert couldn’t even persuade his own people that the Bill was in the public interest, a Bill which has the support of Prime Minister Harper.  The fact that fair minded Senators stood up against this Bill must be troubling to Harper, since the Tories have decided that Private Members Bills are the preferable method for passing their anti-labour agenda, since fewer irrating democratic checks can stand in the way when this process is used.
The Bill C-377 would require unions to compile and disclose reams of useless information to the public at a cost to taxpayers in the tens of millions of dollars.  I’ve described it before as Big Government on Steroids.  It would require disclosure of payments over a $5000 by unions, and an accounting of every minute a union employee spends on some vague concept called ‘political activities’.  The information is not intended to educate union members–provincial laws already regulate information disclosure to union members–it is supposed to be about informing “taxpayers”, like me. 
Do taxpayers want to divert tens of millions of their dollars from health care and education, and from collection of the hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid corporate taxes, to collecting, inspecting, and publishing statistics on how much unions spend on office supplies and rent?  Hiebert and Harper believe they do, or (more likely) they assumed no one was paying attention.  Hiebert actually tried to claim at one point that there would be no cost to taxpayers associated with collecting, policing, and publishing the hundreds of thousands of records his Bill would produce.  Hard to know whether he was being disingenious about this, or whether he is really not very thoughtful. 
The Bill ignited passionate opposition from Liberal and Conservative Senators alike, who saw the Bill for what it is:  a partisan lark designed to bury unions in government red tape at taxpayer expense. 
Senator Segal’s amendments are fanstastic, because they harness the Conservative’s hypocracy on transparency.  The Conservatives recently blocked a Bill introduced by one of their own that would have required public disclosure of government employees’ salaries over $188,000.  Tory MPs amended the Bill to apply only to government employees earning greater than $440,000 per year, which is hardly anyone.  They don’t want the light of transparency shown on their taxpayer funded offices.  Segal’s amendments apply basically the same cuttoff for union officials, so that only union employees earning greater than $444,661 per year would be subject to having their salaries disclosed.   How will Hiebert and his gang explain why private organizations should be subject to greater public transparency than the government elected by taxpayers, or corporations, which receive far more taxpayer benefits than unions?
Segal’s amendments would also draw the line at payments of $150,000 rather than $5000 as the cutoff for the requirement of unions to report payments, and limit the Bill to large unions and not small locals. 
The effect of the Senate vote today is to send the Bill back to the House of Commons for further review and study.  As the summer session begins, this should mean that this particular Tory attack on their political foe, the labour movement, has been put off for a while.  But expect the Bill to resurface in the House of Commons, probably as a government Bill that will be rammed through by Harper and his whip. The only question then will be whether Conservative MP’s in the House will display the courage and good sense of Conservative Senators and resist a law that demonstrates the sort of big nanny state mentality and wasteful use of taxpayer money that Tories like to claim they are against.  We will see.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Racist Facebook Comments About Co-Worker Violate Human Rights Code
next post
Arbitrator Burkett: Restricting Arbitrator Discretion Would Violate Charter

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
10h

I can’t believe that Almost Famous came out 23 years ago.

Time is flying by.

Reply on Twitter 1622776388179705859 Retweet on Twitter 1622776388179705859 3 Like on Twitter 1622776388179705859 14 Twitter 1622776388179705859
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
11h

I had an LLM student who had a part-time job phantom writing labor arbitration decisions based on arbitrator’s notes and instructions.

Like law clerks do for judges (except parties don’t know about the phantom arb writer).

Is using a machine different? Interesting debate.

Valerio De Stefano @valeriodeste

The crucial part starts on p. 5, where the Court reports the answers to the legal questions they posed to ChatGPT. Then, at the end of p. 6, the Court adopts the arguments given in these answers as grounds for its decision.

Reply on Twitter 1622759377944952834 Retweet on Twitter 1622759377944952834 5 Like on Twitter 1622759377944952834 8 Twitter 1622759377944952834
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
12h

Quebec passed anti-scab legislation in 1977, BC in 1993, & Ontario 1993-95.

Hysterical claims that these laws cause job losses & loss of investment aren't supported by evidence. Businesses just don't like them.

Short 🧵

1/

Seamus O'Regan Jr @SeamusORegan

We’re banning replacement workers, as we said on Oct. 19th.

We’re working with unions and employers to get the balance right.

As agreed, government will introduce legislation by the end of this year.

Reply on Twitter 1622745098088861702 Retweet on Twitter 1622745098088861702 16 Like on Twitter 1622745098088861702 39 Twitter 1622745098088861702
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.