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

Tory Senator Insults Order of Canada Recipient for Asking Why Unions Need Disclose More Than Charities

by David Doorey April 24, 2015
written by David Doorey April 24, 2015

It’s easy enough to demonstrate that Bill C-377 is a ridiculous, partisan, waste of taxpayer money designed simply to punish, disadvantage, and hopefully silence unions, a political thorn in the Conservative’s side.  Just ask a Conservative supporter of the Bill why tax policy should require unions to disclose far more information about their activities and employees than any other organization, including charities, corporations, churches, and dues collecting professional associations.  They have no answer, because there can’t be one beyond ‘we really dislike unions’.
The reason can’t be that the federal tax department needs to protect union members, who have a right to know where their dues are spent.  Protecting union member’s right to know how unions spend their dues revenues isn’t a matter for federal tax law.  It’s a provincial labour law matter.  Provincial laws already regulate what information unions have to disclose to members.  If you think there should be more or less information disclosed, then talk to your provincial MPP, not the taxman.   Bill C-377 doesn’t have anything to do with the relationship between unions and their members.  The Tories are pretending that it has to do with the use of ‘tax dollars’, and therefore is a matter for federal tax law.  Since unions and union members receive tax breaks, the public (not union members) have a right to know how unions spend their money and how union employees spend their time.  Follow?
So it is about governing an organization that receives a tax benefit or taxpayer funded subsidies.  You know who else receives tax benefits and taxpayer funded subsidies?  Just about every organization in Canada:  charities, corporations, churches, and dues collecting associations, for example.  As a taxpayer, I directly or indirectly fund all those organizations, not just unions.  So the challenge for supporters of C-377 is why just unions?  Why are they so special that they need to disclose way more information than any other organization that receives tax deductions or tax exemptions?  There can be no sensible tax-based policy answer to that.  Either we think organizations that receive government support in the form of tax subsidies or exemptions or public funding should be required to report everything found in Bill C-377, or we don’t.  Once you try to justify why unions should have to disclose way more information than those other organizations, you just look stupid.  Tax dollars are tax dollars after all.  As a taxpayer, I’m way more interested in how much I am subsiding wealthy executives and corporations who claim tax deductions for $500 bottles of wine, first class travel, and corporate boxes at Leaf games than I am in how much some union paid for their new office furniture last year.  Yet there is no government website  where I can see a breakdown of how much corporations spend on entertainment and first class travel. The public has no right to know that information.

Harper Senate Appointee Plett Insults Distinguished Witness at hearings into Anti-union Bill

Harper Senate Appointee Plett Insults Distinguished Witness at hearings into Anti-union Bill


Nevertheless, the Conservative’s standard talking point has been that Bill C-377 simply imposes the same reporting obligations on unions as already apply to charities.  That is so obviously untrue that you have to assume the Conservatives know they are deliberately misleading the public and they just don’t care.  I had an exchange a couple of years ago (this is how long the Conservatives have been trying to push this Bill through) with Senator Eaton, another Conservative Senator who defended Bill C377 as a simple extension of reporting requirements that already apply to charities.  Senator Eaton wrote in a letter to me:

The Income Tax Act has required charities … to publicly report on their finances for the past thirty-six years.  All one need do to review this information is to do a Google search of “CRA Charities” to see reports from any of these charities and others.

In my post back to Senator Eaton, I pointed out that charities are required to report no where near what Bill C-377 would require of unions.   As an example, I used the charitable filings of the Fraser Institute as an example to show how little reporting is actually required of a charity in Canada. It disclosed nothing near what unions would need to publish under Bill C-377.
As a public service, I actually re-drafted the Bill  a while back to assist the government in understanding what the law would look like if it actually treated unions like other organizations that receive tax benefits and public subsidies, including corporations and charities.  Since that is what the Conservatives claim they are trying to achieve, I thought I’d help, since their legislative drafter must have got lost along the way.  Here’s my draft Bill, by the way.   I was shocked that Bill C-377 was revived in its original form and not as my re-drafted bill!  The reason you know I am being sarcastic is that no politician would ever consider making corporations disclose what Bill C-377 will require of unions.  Corporations and charities too would go ballistic with claims about over-regulation and the nanny state, and they would be correct.   If you add other organizations to Bill C-377, you can easily see how ridiculous and punitive the reporting requirements in it are.
This week, another in a line of Prime Minister Harper’s plum Conservative Senate appointees, Donald Plett, engaged in an insulting (really unbelievable) exchange with Paul Cavalluzzo in Senate hearings into Bill C-377. Mr. Cavalluzzo is one of Canada’s most respected lawyers, a recipient of both the Order of Ontario and the Order of Canada. Senator Plett, on the other hand, was awarded the Senate gig by Harper for being a loyal Conservative Party solider for years. Plett asks Mr. Cavalluzzo if unions should be required to disclose as much information as charities, to which Cavalluzzo makes the correct and frankly obvious response that Bill C-377 imposes much more onerous reporting requirements on unions than is required of charities. Plett then loses his mind, and insults the Order of Canada recipient. Watch this disgusting display from a sitting Senator:

Wow.  Well, Plett does seem to fit in nicely with the quality of Senators Mr. Harper has appointed.
Bill C-377 is a private member’s bill initially brought forward by a guy named Russ Hiebert, a Conservative back-bencher who has now quit politics.  It was shot down last year by the Senate, of all places, because of a boatload of concerns raised by almost everyone who is not a lapdog Conservative or antiunion lobbyist.  Even prominent, level-minded Conservatives decried the Bill as a blatant attempt to punish a political foe and a mind boggling waste of taxpayer money and Canada Revenue resources.
I’ve written about Bill C-377 lots of times.  It requires unions to disclose every payment over $5000, and union employees to report how many minutes they spend on “political activities”, whatever that means.  Its purpose is to bog down unions in red tape, provide employers (including public sector employers) with information they can use in collective bargaining, and to provide antiunion lobbyists with reams of information to comb through to find some basis for criticizing how unions spend their money.  What  it is NOT about is regulating the relationship between unions and their members, since that is a provincial matter already regulated by the provinces.
The Tories have to pretend this is a tax law so it becomes a federal matter.  So they claim the Bill just brings unions in line with charities. Paul Cavalluzzo was just pointing that truth out, and Senator Plett lost his mind.  Heaven forbid that an obvious truth conflict with the Conservative talking points.
Question for Discussion
Same question many of us have asked all along:
Is there any principled TAX policy reason (i.e. not based on mistrust of unions, or an attempt to silence,  inconvenience, or impose costs on unions. or to give employer an advantage in bargaining) why tax law should be used to impose on unions, and ONLY unions, a requirement to report every expense over $5000 and every minute an employee spends on “political activities”? 
I haven’t heard one yet.
 
 
 

3 comments
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
Workers Hired After a Strike Begins Can't Vote in a Union Decertification Vote
next post
Trump Hotel Employees Win Union Drive After Creative Campaign

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

Interested in your comment that you don’t have rules. I’d think that submitting an essay written by a machine without citing the machine is just straight up plagiarism.

My view is that any text not written by yourself needs to be fully cited.

Andres Guadamuz @technollama

@shahaoul @glynmoody Indeed. As we don't have rules, we can only mark what's in front of us. I can imagine some students using it judiciously, to get a technical definition for example, but in other cases the result can be an incoherent unstructured essay. So we mark it as that.

Reply on Twitter 1619691956413808640 Retweet on Twitter 1619691956413808640 2 Like on Twitter 1619691956413808640 23 Twitter 1619691956413808640
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
19h

McDonald's president who made $7.4 million last year says proposal to pay fast-food workers $22 an hour is 'costly and job-destroying' https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/mcdonalds-president-who-made-dollar74-million-last-year-says-proposal-to-pay-fast-food-workers-dollar22-an-hour-is-costly-and-job-destroying/ar-AA16Mc7D?ocid=a2hs&li=BBnb7Kz

Reply on Twitter 1619548631421562880 Retweet on Twitter 1619548631421562880 17 Like on Twitter 1619548631421562880 47 Twitter 1619548631421562880
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
19h

Google axes thousands of jobs while rolling in cash on orders from Wall Street pencil pushers. Pretty obvious where public anger should be directed.

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2023/01/28/dont-do-evil-massive-layoffs-at-google-shine-a-light-on-tech-giants-ugly-side.html

Reply on Twitter 1619544883609407488 Retweet on Twitter 1619544883609407488 7 Like on Twitter 1619544883609407488 9 Twitter 1619544883609407488
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
  • 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.