Bill C-377 An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations)

Another day another Private Member's bill. I'm getting the feeling the Harper Government is using it's back bench to shoulder some of the legislative burden. I don't think they are acting independently of Harper. Which begs the question; why isn't his government introducing this legislation instead of passing it through a backbencher. The MP in question is Russel Hiebert. A quick look at his political position places Hiebert firmly to the far right. It is then not unreasonable that he would present the Anti-Union bill, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations). It's not a long bill and thankfully doesn't come with the usual Orwellian Alternative title. 


A piece of  legislation is presented to meet a need; the need may be defined as either practical or ideological.   The test of any legislation is whether it harms or benefits Canadian citizens. While this should be objective; more often than not it is an argument beset by partisanship. I take a simple approach; any legislative action should be neutral or beneficial to the majority of Canadians whenever possible; in cases where there is obvious harm, a pressing necessity must be demonstrated and that such legislation have an expiration date.

So what is the Bill C-377? It amends the tax code to require labour organizations to disclose all financial information, expenditures, investments salaries and other activity dealing with the disbursement of money. The information will be made available for public viewing. 

The reason given for given for the new reporting requirement is that it is a public tax benefit. While public money does not go directly to unions; union members receive tax benefits related to their membership. Public money however indirect means citizen have an interest. The best way to promote and protect that interests is the implementation of a rigorous and transparent reporting requirement. 

There are two fallacious notions being promulgated here "transparency" and "public tax benefit" in justifying an increased reporting requirement. They are closely entwined ideas, public money and knowing how that money is being spent. On their face it is hard to argue against the idea of supervision over public money. That is the slight of hand in this Three-Card-Monty, legislation. Their is no public money, it's a tax deduction; you get your own money back. If there is no public money then the need for transparency no longer applies. 

I will note that unions are require to make financial disclosures already. In fact union members have access to all the financial dealing of their unions. The idea inferred by C-377 is that union members are not in fact kept informed about union goings on. The notion that C-377 will actually help guard the interests of union members is laughable. You don't get this level of Orwellian logic till you encounter "Right To Work' legislation. 

The fact that other groups and associations charitable or otherwise will not face such strenuous reporting requirements indicates a subtler intent. Doctors and other fee paying entities who receive similar tax benefits do not face a heightened scrutiny. It can be argued that charities should receive greater public scrutiny because of the work they do and the level of trust given to them. The legislation imposes a burden on a particular type of association, labour, leaving similar groups alone. 

It is clear that Unions and labour is being singled out for an increased reporting burden. It won't be cheap to comply. It will cost money to hire personal to deal with the new level of disclosure. Government types sniff and say stuff like "Internet filing" and "digital"; as if the information is magically compiled and filed by accountant elves. Money spent on this regime, can't be spent furthering Labour interests; how convenient. A novel way to reduce opposition to conservative government.

The finally requirement of posting for public view the very detailed working and financial interest of a Labour organization, is ridiculous. Why does the public need to know what a Union leader is paid; union members already do. I imagine much like the purpose of "sunshine" laws; fill a days worth of conservative media; generate faux outrage and division. 

In any measure it can be said that C-377 doesn't meet the legislative test. It serves no practical purpose. It discriminates  against one type of association. It imposes a burden without a discernible benefit. There is no pressing level of necessity. It is partisan. It is a bill meant to challenge Labour, impose burdens and weaken the union movement. It should not pass.