MPs clash over Bill C-377 to force public disclosures by labour unions
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Yes legally. It's not only churches, but many "charities" are involved in political movements
A PRO-LIFE CANADA DIRECTORY INDEX
The Canadian Bar Association has had a look, and they've noted quite the laundry list of problems with the legislation, including compliance costs, constitutional issues, privacy concerns, and impacts on pensions and benefit plans.
http://albertadiary.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CBA.pdf
http://albertadiary.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CBA.pdf
Below are #1 and #3 largest private (union) pensions in Canada and their asset base.
Ontario Teachers Pension: $117.1 Billion in Assets
OMERS: $55 billion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As compared to:
"Great-West Lifeco and its companies had $484 billion in assets under administration at December 31, 2010."
Power Corporation of Canada | Companies of the Group
A charity/church funding a "political cause" is irrelevant, the CRA are directed at charitable orgs funding political parties.
There have been documented cases of unions doing exactly that.
8O Another "private members" bill. Probably directly from the desk of el Primo.
Cain't prove it. Just seems like something the slimy ****er would do.
Gotta control them pesky unions. Cain't have the great unwashed wanting a fair deal.
Hell things was good during the 30's . Could hire twenty men for fifty cents a week.
We gotta get back to the good'l'daze.
"Have another turkey leg, Jim?"
"Nah Steve, thanks, but that last bit of caviar filled me right up"
"Got some cake for the people ?""
"Yep"
"OK, we're good to go."
Wish they'd keep their private members out of my cornflakes
Cain't prove it. Just seems like something the slimy ****er would do.
Gotta control them pesky unions. Cain't have the great unwashed wanting a fair deal.
Hell things was good during the 30's . Could hire twenty men for fifty cents a week.
We gotta get back to the good'l'daze.
"Have another turkey leg, Jim?"
"Nah Steve, thanks, but that last bit of caviar filled me right up"
"Got some cake for the people ?""
"Yep"
"OK, we're good to go."
Wish they'd keep their private members out of my cornflakes
It's only irrelevant if you choose to ignore it. People don't pay tax on union dues. People don't pay tax on church donations. Both types of organizations are politically active. If it's only "funding political parties" then the government could have simply made it illegal to donate directly to a political party.
It's the CRA rules. i would like to say that the union body is ignoring them, but seeing how they continue to pursue these actions despite having full knowledge that it is illegal, I think it's fair to say that they are taking a calculated risk in losing their non-profit status.
... And?
The churches are not directly financing political parties or candidates on an ongoing basis; at least there is no news items that come to my mind in them being caught
See above.
This has everything to do with wanting to sit on both sides of the fence... The union body is more than welcome to actively finance political parties - they just can't do it as a non-profit. They are more than welcome to shed the non-profit status and participate just like any private individual or corporation
The rules are already in place. It seems that you simply want to have special rules that provide all forms of benefits to one group at the expense of an entire society... Again, if this is so important in the union philosophy; shed the non-profit status and donate, finance and influence til your heart's content.
No, I don't think so. If the government really had issues with funding political parties, they could easily stop that without this legislation as there are already laws on the books. What you are suggesting is that the government isn't enforcing existing laws and yet want to make more. If that's really the case then they are just plain stupid.
You sure do work hard in bending over backwards to dodge the easy solution on this issue and demand that society get turned on it's ear to accommodate one individual group.
I can't say it any simpler - shed the non-profit status and you can do whatever the hell you want
I can't say it any simpler - shed the non-profit status and you can do whatever the hell you want
I'd say unions should not be required to disclose to the public as they should be viewed as private institutions with no legal recognition. Not illegal, but just not recognized.
Corporations are private institutions... Should they too have opportunity to not report?
To the public? No.
Now of course who would want to invest in a corporation without knowing what they're getting into? And certainly should a corporation choose to report, then of course the report ought to be true and factual and not misleading.
Same with a union. But who would want to invest in a union? However, while I think it's reasonable for a corporation, whether for-profit or not, to exist, unions are just a nuisance mostly and so I think they should not be given any more power than your average NGO. In other words, if you strike, you break your contract and you're fired or at least reprimanded.
I'm also for right-to-work legislation prohibiting anyone from being forced to join a union.
Read the rules on charities. Their charter can't be for one thing and then do another. Also there is a difference between not for profits and charities and some cross the line.
Then why allow a union do do so?
Corps pay the full tax load and do not have non-profit status thereby allowing them to contribute funds to political entities (theoritically within the bounds of the laws).
The argument that I am debating is the desire for unions to have a non-profit status (exempting them from certain taxes) AND being able to donate directly.
The CRA rules clear. You may not like them, but they are still the rules
Corps do not have the opportunity to make a decision if they will report or not... They must
I fully agree with what you've suggested; but that is a broader issue and (obviously) subject to an individual's personal opinion.
I believe that in theory it does exist, although in practice, it is a myth
Interesting thing about union pension funds is that they are strongly ANTI union in their investments. Timberwest, in which the Ontario teachers have or had a significant holding fired all their union logging crews and contracted it out to the lowest bidders. Also closed ALL their Canadian mills and sell almost exclusively to the US log market.
I wonder if the Cons are willing to fully fund training programs that unions buck into or fund fully?
The misconceptions on this board are hilarious.
A local union here in Regina is building a new training center because the province can't accomodate the the demand. The center is being built by non-union contractors.
The misconceptions on this board are hilarious.