Testy times in the Senate

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/04/2015 (3828 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

wfpvideo:4201339414001:wfpvideo

Manitoba Senator Don Plett was asked by a Conservative committee chair to “reconsider” an outburst at a Senate committee hearing this week in a discussion with a witness about a piece of union disclosure legislation. 

The Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs met twice this week in consideration of Bill C-377. It is a private members’ bill, that has the backing of the Prime Minister’s Office, and require unions to publicly disclose financial information on spending, salaries and political activities.

Critics of the bill call it an all-out ideological assault on unions which would strip them of their ability to bargain by laying bare their finances including what they could pay workers in the event of a strike. 

The government, and the bill’s backer, Conservative MP Russ Hiebert, say it’s time there was sunshine shed on the finances of unions, which get taxpayer help because union dues are tax deductible and unions don’t pay taxes on things such as investment income. 

The bill was amended in the Senate in 2013 under the influence of Conservative Sen. Hugh Segal, who called the bill unconstitutional and badly written.

The changes, which significantly increased the dollar limits for financial disclosure, were made with the support of 16 Conservative Senators and the Independent Liberal Senators (read those appointed as Liberals but who now sit separately from the Liberal MP caucus under an edict by leader Justin Trudeau). 

But the amended bill never made it back into the House of Commons for debate because Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament.  So, in a quirk of our political system, the bill is now back in a Senate committee, in its original form. And this time Segal isn’t there, as he resigned last year and now works at the University of Toronto.

He told the Canadian Press last fall the bill wasn’t suddenly any more constitutional simply because he had left the upper chamber. 

Nevertheless the bill began its second journey through the Senate committee Wednesday, and one of the witnesses was Toronto labour lawyer Paul Cavalluzzo, who said, among other things, that the Senate should ask the Supreme Court to look at the bill and determine if it is constitutional.

Plett and Cavaluzzo, who were sitting one seat apart around the committee table, bared their fangs at each other over several issues including whether trade unions are voluntary, whether it is rich for Senators to be accusing anyone of lacking transparency, and comparisons between trade unions and charities.

At the end of their back and forth, Plett ripped off a sheet of paper from his pad in clear disgust and told Cavaluzzo off.

“Thank you very much for coming,” he said. “I consider your time and my time wasted with you here today not answering my question.”

Cavaluzzo was insulted.

“What an insult,” he cried. “What an unbelievable insult from supposedly a public servant.”

Committee chair and Conservative Sen. Bob Runciman cut them off and then suggested Plett should recant.

“Sen. Plett perhaps I think you might want to reconsider that comment. I don’t think it adds anything to the debate at all.”

The meeting then continued.