The Senate’s bad call

On dec. 5, 2011, Conservative MP russ Hiebert introduced Private Member’s Bill C-377, which would force trade unions to disclose information about their finances and spending habits. The bill was passed by the House of Commons, but was blocked on Wednesday, thanks to 16 Conservative senators who lined up with the bill’s Liberal opponents in the upper house.

The bill would have required unions to disclose details of all transactions above $5,000, including a breakdown of all political and lobbying activities. It would also require unions to report the names and salaries of all union officials earning more than $100,000 to the public.

The idea was to bring unions in line with charities, since both types of organizations get special tax status. The ability to deduct union dues and charitable donations from one’s taxes allows Canadian workers to divert pre-

When it comes to financial privacy, unions can’t have it both ways

tax dollars to causes that are important to them.

But there is a difference between charities and unions. In many contexts, Canadian law compels workers to pay union dues, regardless of whether they support the union’s activities and policies. In return for their money, the least that these members are owed is the right to scrutinize publicly available data about what union bosses are doing with all of that cash.

In most cases, forcing private organizations to open their books to the world would be a violation of their right to privacy. But unions cannot have it both ways. They cannot be treated as private entities when it comes to their financial workings, while using the full force of the law to force people to join or pay dues. Nor should they be allowed to enjoy tax-exempt status without telling the CrA what activities they’re engaging in.

unions do far more than simply push for more labour rights for their members. Many engage in lobbying and other political activities. Indeed, in some cases, they spend money on trendy international causes that have nothing to do with their mandate, or their members’ professional interests.

If a public-sector union started a campaign to encourage people to shop at government-run liquor stores, instead of the private competition; or to vote for one party over the other (as has happened in British Columbia), its members and the public have the right to know how much money they’re using to do so.

But some of Canada’s unelected senators seem to disagree. In a charge led by Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, the Senate amended Bill C-377 such that unions would have to report only those expenditures that were above $150,000; and disclose salaries over $444,000 (which is likely more than most, if not all, union bosses make). Moreover, even these rules would apply only to groups with more than 50,000 members.

If this tactic sounds familiar, it’s because it was used by the Conservative senators’ colleagues in the House, when they gutted MP Brent rathgeber’s bill demanding public disclosure of civil service salaries. With the guidance of the Prime Minister’s Office, Tories in the House sought to amend Mr. rathgeber’s Private Member’s Bill so that only salaries above $400,000 would be disclosed. This would have watered down the bill to the point of rendering it useless, which is why Mr. rathgeber quit the Conservative caucus this month.

The Senate was intended to be the chamber of sober second thought, and some will argue that by blocking this piece of legislation for the time being, the red Chamber is merely fulfilling its intended function. But given the similitude with the amendments directed at Brent rathgeber’s bill, it seems more like a slap in the face of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The Senate’s legislative power should not be used to settle grudges, especially not when the underlying legislative issue stake is so serious. Indeed, the episode underscores the fact that these Senators are not elected politicians who are required to answer to the public for their actions. If they were, they probably would have thought twice before gutting C-377, which was passed by the democratically elected House of Commons.

If senators really want to act as a check on the Commons, they should use whatever political capital they have to push for meaningful Senate reform (which, ironically, is something that Senator Segal, much to his credit, has done often). Once this country has a Triple-e — elected, equal and effective — Senators will have far more credibility when they buck the will of the Commons.