# Trudeau Gives Big Labour a Pass ...



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

trudeau gives big labour a pass by announcing that his government will not enforce union financial transparency legislation ...

predictable under the ndp and now we know it is predictable under our "can't we all get along" prime minister

his spots are showing

86% of rank and file union members want this but trudeau wants the unions to hide their activities under a rug

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/trudeau-gives-big-labour-a-pass

you mess with big-labour and you might end up dead



> In detailing the financial mismanagement he discovered within his own union, Pereira told the Senate that “All Canadians, not just unionized Canadians, need detailed online financial disclosure of all tax-exempt union organizations to put an end to the abuse of tax-deductible union dues.” *In exchange for his openness Pereira’s life was threatened.*


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

fatcat said:


> trudeau gives big labour a pass by not announcing that his government will not enforce union financial transparency legislation ...


Just to clarify, I think you meant to say: "by announcing..."



fatcat said:


> predictable under the ndp and now we know it is predictable under our "can't we all get along" prime minister


Yes, very predictable.

Justin Trudeau and unions

Quote:

=================

Between 2006 and 2010, Justin Trudeau collected $112,500 from various unions for speaking fees. As a political candidate, it would have been illegal for unions to donate any money to him under federal electoral laws.

Trudeau has promised that Liberal Senators will work “hard to try and slow down, block, impede” Bill C-377 and he has promised to repeal it if it becomes law, should he become Prime Minister. At the same time, Trudeau is promising to increase transparency, yet is fighting a bill that would actually have seen unions have to disclose the $112,500 they paid him for his speeches.

=================


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> Just to clarify, I think you meant to say: "by announcing..."


indeed, corrrected, thanks goldstone


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Union members do get details of the financing. 

All national budgets for the various departmental spending is passed by national delegates elected from local unions, and local unions produce monthly budgets for their members.

If administrators of union funds are committing fraud, it is unlikely they would include their illegal activities in any public disclosures in any event.

This is a ruse for conservatives, who want to make an issue of the political spending of unions.

Union members are well aware their unions contribute money and workers to the politicians who represent their views.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Political spending by the unions IS an issue.

It would be illegal for the unions to make donations to Trudeau. Unions ran around the law by hiring him to make phoney baloney speeches. sags, this reeks of corruption.

Conservative bill would have made such payments public. But now it is about to be repealed - by the guy who received union payments.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Agreed that is it "running around the law", but it was effective to some degree, and union members want their union to be effectively representing their interests.

The Conservatives represented what union members don't want.............job cuts, right to work legislation, and other measures viewed as an threat on their livelihoods. 

The thrust of the Conservative led legislation is that unions are too good at operating within the boundaries of the law, and it doesn't work in their favor.

It should come as no surprise the Liberals will repeal the legislation if that is what their supporters want.

How much taxpayer money did the Conservatives spend on election advertising that "ran around the law", such as massive advertising on the "success" of their Economic Action Plan ?

To me union spending just balanced the playing field a little better.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

sags, you are talking like a former Union Activist and a card-carrying Liberal.

Trying thinking like a Canadian for a change.

Can you give me one good reason why union payments to politicians should remain secret? 

Are these payments in the best interest of the country? If the answer is Yes, why repeal the law that would make them transparent?


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

BTW, this is not true:



sags said:


> Union members do get details of the financing.
> 
> All national budgets for the various departmental spending is passed by national delegates elected from local unions, and local unions produce monthly budgets for their members.


Union disclosures don't go into enough detail. Payments to politicians, such as speaking fees to Trudeau, are not disclosed.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Can you give me one good reason why union payments to politicians should remain secret? _

The legislation goes well beyond political contributions and includes all payments and contracts for more than $5,000, salaries over $100,000, and reports on organizing activities.

This would impact business suppliers to unions, personal salaries of union employees, and reveal confidential information on organizing objectives of the unions.

The legislation would also be challenged for Constitutionality in the Supreme Court, which is a distraction that only the Harper government was interested in.

From what I have read, the Liberals will be introducing their own legislation that deals with election reform.........including political spending by incumbent governments and contributions from private entities.

The Harper government tried to push through their legislation without debate, but hopefully the Liberal government's legislation will have a full debate in Parliament.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Now that the good union jobs have mostly gone overseas they don't have a big enough voting block to ensure their power. What do you expect them to do?


----------

