Insights Header image
Insights Header image
Insights Header image

Union Financial Disclosure Bill Passed by Canada’s Senate Just Before Summer Recess

July 2015 Employment and Labour Bulletin 2 minute read

Immediately prior to their summer break, Canada’s Senate voted 35-22 to pass Bill C-377, a private member’s bill which is causing much consternation for trade unions.

This move comes as something of a surprise since it was the Senate who broke ranks with the federal government back in June 2013 to block passage of the same legislation. For further details on the legislative history and events in 2013, please see our earlier bulletin here.

The new legislation passed on June 30, 2015 will require labour organizations to publicly disclose all payments made to outside groups or individuals worth $5,000 or more. There will also be salary disclosure for workers earning more than $100,000.

The controversial new rules are set out in legislation sponsored by Conservative MP Russ Hiebert and are effected through changes to the Income Tax Act. The regime will require disclosure of relevant financial information to the Canada Revenue Agency. These statements would then be available on a public website. Similar regimes are already in place in certain other jurisdictions.

The ostensible justification for the new requirements is the fact that unions are exempt from taxation. Those who support C-377 argue that unions should be treated with the same public disclosure requirements that charities follow. Some have also claimed that the move to greater transparency is justifiable since unionized Canadian workplaces impose mandatory dues on employees whether or not they are union members, and union dues are tax deductible.

A number of unions have also been vocal about the excessive compliance costs. Critics of C-377 have also questioned the bill’s impact on privacy rights and its constitutionality. Indeed, a number of unions and the Canadian Labour Congress have already spoken out publicly about their intent to challenge the legal validity of the new regime. Among their complaints, the specific requirements on disclosing political activity allegedly infringe on freedoms of association and expression protected under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Further public debate and legal wrangling on the issues appear to be almost inevitable.

by George Waggott

A Cautionary Note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2015

Insights (5 Posts)View More

Featured Insight

More Than Meets the Eye: The Legal Implications of British Columbia’s Agreement to Recognize Aboriginal Title Over Haida Gwaii

An analysis of legal implications related to the BC Government's agreement with the Haida Nation to recognize Aboriginal title over Haida Gwaii.

Read More
Apr 23, 2024
Featured Insight

Lessons Learned from the TTC’s Ransomware Attack

Lessons learned from the recent investigation by the Ontario IPC into the effectiveness of the TTC's cybersecurity measures and ransomware attack response

Read More
Apr 23, 2024
Featured Insight

Don’t Get Caught by Canada’s Patent Novelty Grace-Period

The key difference between Canada and other jurisdictions like the United States when relying on the grace-period for inventor disclosures.

Read More
Apr 23, 2024
Featured Insight

Shifting Gears – Canada to Consider New Motor Vehicle Equipment Regulations to Help Prevent Auto Theft

Transport Canada announces plan to update safety standards to combat auto theft.

Read More
Apr 22, 2024