Law Times

Page 6 January 20, 2014 • Law Times COMMENT u Editorial obitEr By Glenn Kauth Partisanship bill off the mark I t's a bit ironic that an MP from a party that's played a big role in encouraging partisanship in the last few years while muzzling presumably neutral government scientists and researchers is making a fuss about the political links of some members of the public service. Last week, critics and legal experts raised concerns about the proposed bill C-250, legislation supported by the prime minister that would require "every person who applies for a position in the office of an agent of Parliament to make a declaration stating whether, in the 10 years before applying for that position, they occupied specified politically partisan positions. . . . The declarations are to be posted on the web site of the office of the relevant agent of Parliament." Besides the declarations, the private member's bill proposed by Conservative MP Mark Adler would allow parliamentarians to request an investigation should they suspect an employee is doing their job in a partisan manner, according to the Toronto Star. Adler raises a legitimate concern about the idea of reports released by parliamentary agents whose staff worked for political parties. But is this really a problem? Someone like Adler might argue we don't know if it's a problem since employees don't currently have to disclose previous partisan positions. But if there were a significant number of people in that position, it's likely it would have already come to light given that political parties know who worked for them. So the bill seems to be targeting a problem there's little evidence exists and may put us on the potentially slippery slope towards trying to put a damper on political activities within the public service more gen- erally. Obviously, government employees shouldn't do their jobs in a partisan manner, but that doesn't mean either their political pasts or their current activities preclude them from doing so. Certainly, lots of judges have run for elected office or been party donors or workers and we trust them to keep their bias in check when they join the bench. In the end, we should be looking to encourage political involvement by Canadians more generally, something this bill certainly doesn't promote. Given that some aspects of it are unclear and the fact it really wouldn't accomplish anything, it's not worthy of the government's support. And if the government has such a big concern about partisanship, it could start by looking at the excesses among parliamentarians first. Politicians, of course will naturally and legitimately be partisan, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't expect them to be more mindful of the public interest in the way they conduct themselves. — Glenn Kauth Unions gird for battle as Hudak targets their cash flow O ntario Conservative Leader Tim Hudak's new plan has a sexy headline: one million jobs for Ontario. He'll table the bill after the legislature returns from its break, but there's something else behind the curtain: a showdown with big labour. On the surface, Hudak's million jobs platform is a first look at the Conservative campaign theme for a general election widely expected this spring. It would cut corporate taxes and red tape while opening up interprovincial trade and investing in the skilled trades. There would also be a public-sector wage freeze and performance-based pay for cabinet ministers. They're great ideas even if they're not new. But at least it's a plan even if it's a longterm one. More interestingly, the shoe yet to drop in the Conservative campaign platform is Hudak's version of a right-towork scheme that would offer workers an expanded opt-out clause at union shops. It would attack the Rand formula devised by former Supreme Court of Canada justice Ivan Rand who arbitrated the end of a 99-day strike by 19,000 Ford workers in 1945-46. The Rand formula was a classic Law Times their focus," the manifesto Canadian compromise upheld by the top court as a reasonable Queen's asserts. "Labour laws have given union leaders substanlimit on both the freedom of Park tial power with little or no association and not to associate accountability." by making dues mandatory but The Canadian Centre for not union membership. Policy Alternatives notes SasHudak plans to woo the pokatchewan and Ontario are tential free riders (those who the most likely beachheads now pay dues but aren't memfor the battle over the right to bers of a union) and others who work, although it suggests in want a meritocracy. In reality, its own assessment that the though, it's about the money. Ian Harvey idea may eventually spread Those mandatory union dues to the federal level and all are a cash cow for unions and Hudak wants to blunt the political impact provinces. While the Conservative white paper of that spending. Who can blame him? It was a union-funded coalition that spent noted the value of unions in making workheavily during election campaigns in a bid places safer and creating a middle class, it to discredit Hudak and his party. It's also suggested the times have changed: "Unions painfully obvious the Liberals still govern prospered in a world of large corporations, jobs for life, and a relatively slower pace of because of their big union support. So now it's payback. By going after change. Unfortunately, unions have not mandatory union dues, Hudak is aiming adapted to the modern economy." Organized labour is keenly aware the for the unions' tenderloin: their money. The nexus of all this is a Conservative strategy of capping public-sector wages white paper released in June 2012 that under the flag of austerity is something forms much of the million jobs platform. of a Trojan horse concealing the threat of In it, Hudak also talked about the need for wholesale labour law reform far beyond a wage freeze. labour law reforms. That said, Ontario's Labour Relations "Some union leaders have clearly lost Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com • clb.lteditor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Editor in Chief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gail J. Cohen Editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glenn Kauth Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Yamri Taddese Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlotte Santry Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mallory Hendry CaseLaw Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adela Rodriguez Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alicia Adamson Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catherine Giles Electronic Production Specialist . . . . . . . Derek Welford ©2014 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written permission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. clb.lteditor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $179.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $145 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $4.50. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing www.lawtimesnews.com Act is in dire need of revision, but there has been no political appetite or indeed resources given the Liberal government's perpetual crisis mode. But that's not the case for the Progressive Conservatives. If elected, they're hungry to get their teeth into the issue. For labour, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives notes, the pressure is going to get worse "unless the national and provincial economies are able to achieve more robust growth that brings down unemployment. Higher rates of growth and lower unemployment would shift power back to individual workers and trade unions." With the loonie slipping, there's some hope that exports will fire up and drive the economy again, which will in turn provide a needed distraction as the United States staggers back to prosperity. But given Hudak's dogged determination to strike back at the unions that have caused him and his party so much pain, organized labour is also girding for war. LT uIan Harvey has been a journalist for 35 years writing about a diverse range of issues including legal and political affairs. His e-mail address is ianharvey@rogers.com. label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Ellen Alstein at ............ 416-649-9926 or fax: 416-649-7870 ellen.alstein@thomsonreuters.com ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Kimberlee Pascoe ...............................416-649-8875 kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Grace So .............................................416-609-5838 grace.so@thomsonreuters.com Joseph Galea .......................................416-649-9919 joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe ................................416-298-5077 steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com

• Cover