8

Liberals put halt to controversial finance disclosure rules for unions

Waiver effectively removes any worry unions had that they would have to open their books to show every transaction


 

OTTAWA — The federal government has taken its first step towards repealing a controversial law that would have required unions to disclose finite details of their spending.

The government says it is waiving requirements for unions to track every dollar of spending so it could one day be publicly disclosed by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The rules are contained in a private member’s bill known as Bill C-377, passed in June over objections from unions, provinces and experts who called it unconstitutional and argued it would cost millions for the federal government to enforce.

Under the law, unions would have had to track spending starting December 31, and the first batch of public disclosures would have been due to the Canada Revenue Agency by mid-2017.

The waiver effectively removes any worry unions had that they would have to open their books to show every transaction as well as the salaries of anyone who worked full-time or part-time for a union even if they weren’t a member of the executive.

The Liberals had promised during the election to repeal the bill.


 

Liberals put halt to controversial finance disclosure rules for unions

  1. In my opinion this was a good law. Union members (and the CRA) have the right to know how their money is spent.

    • It’s also taxpayers’ money, given that union dues is tax deductible and likely makes up the vast majority of union revenue.
      [I don’t know if the disclosure rules struck the right balance, but I do think the principle is correct]

      • The union committees that decide how and where union funds are donated are dominated by hard leftists whose political views might not align with the people from whom they gladly take money. Knowing how and where their union contributions are spent should be a no-brainer for union rank and file. Knowing how much they pay their own union organizers would be a good second step, also a no-brainer.
        The union hierarchy opposes these rules because it may expose some very uncomfortable truths, such as how much the union execs pay themselves out of dues extracted from their membership, or how much money they have contributed to causes diametrically opposite the economic and social interests of their membership. (i.e. the Teamsters Union campaigning for Rachel Notley, who is opposed to the very existence of the largest Teamster-employing operation in Canada.)
        Other than to hide malfeasance, what other plausible reasons could there be for unions to want to avoid disclosure?

        • Your concern for union members is truly touching, Bill.
          But it’s odd that you didn’t mention the fact that if members don’t like the awful ‘hard leftists’ they can just vote for someone else. In fact, those ‘hard leftists’ were put in place by the memberships’ votes in the first place. The members are even free to run themselves on whatever kind of disclosure platform they wish.

          ” what other plausible reasons could there be for unions to want to avoid disclosure?”
          I’m shocked that you posted that long-winded comment on a topic you’re apparently wholly unfamiliar with. How out-of-character for you, Bill.

          • Okay then, other than to hide possible malfeasance, what reasons might there be for union managers to avoid financial disclosure? I can’t think of a plausible one other than that. You’re saying that it’s not a valid question, so give us some examples that might invalidate it. For example, other than to hide possible malfeasance, unions might legitimately wish to avoid disclosure because….
            (Hint: Ball is in your court, there, gringo.)

  2. First it was the Indians now the Unions next the Lieberal Party……….

    • Good one, joefrmedm!
      They’re going to roll back all those disclosure rules Harper brought in for political parties….hahaha.

  3. Well, it is payback time. You have to remember that unions spent a fortune putting him in there. Now you want them to account for every penny of that?!?!

Sign in to comment.