Why I believe Bill C-377 is flawed
Transparency for governments, political parties, public companies and other large institutions is a good thing. But Bill C-377, which the Senate has sent back to the House of Commons with substantial amendments to its provisions in regard to trade unions, was a badly drafted means of addressing this issue. It would create unintended and perverse outcomes, and is both unbalanced and unconstitutional.
The weight of testimony before the Senate’s Banking and Finance Committee was clear. Witnesses as diverse as the Mutual Fund Association, the Canadian life and health insurance industry, the B.C. Police Association, the Association of Chief Financial Officers and the Canadian Bar Association, none of whom can be dismissed as hard-core, left-wing agitators, presented evidence showing how the expenditure disclosure level of $5,000 (cumulatively in any one year) would be counterproductive to millions of Canadians — including those who do not work for unions, but do own mutual funds or medical insurance. even police officers who worked for their local police union in small towns and cities would have their names disclosed if they were paid one hundred dollars a week or more.
Other countries that have expendi- ture-disclosure rules impose them on both sides of the bargaining table, not just the union side.
As to salary disclosure, why would federal public-servant salaries not be reported at any level beneath that of a senior deputy’s — while public sector unions would have to report at the $100,000 salary-level and more? The Senate amendments to C-377 merely established parity in proposed salary reporting regimes.
When a corporate executive spends company money on legal advice, lobbying or public relations, those legitimate business costs are deductible from earnings before taxes are paid. So the taxpayer assists in that process by helping to fund the deductions. When unions collect dues, which the union member can deduct from his or her tax return, the taxpayer also helps. As does the taxpayer with Law Society, chartered or management accounting or Medical Association fees paid as a condition of practicing one’s profession in most provinces. Why should unions face a disclosure level that all of these other organizations do not? Why discriminate in this way? Had the bill passed the Senate un-amended, the clamor for state-ordered disclosure from other groups would have been loud and broad.
As a Tory, I oppose the government poking its nose into all organizations with membership dues — as that might well include all of the above, plus service clubs, churches, legions, regimental associations, university alumni, sports clubs and so forth. It’s not the sort of thing a small-government-conservative should embrace.
The Senate is, aside from Alberta senators, unelected. It should not get in the way of the elected House most of the time. But every once in a while, when the drafting errors are this egregious, the unintended consequences so destructive and the constitutional foundation so weak, as was the case for C-377, the Senate needs to act.
Sometimes, the most loyal thing one can do is protect one’s government, party and country from legislation that would be, however noble in intent, seriously harmful.