Working in the Shadows for Transparency: Russ Hiebert, LabourWatch, Nanos Research, and the Making of Bill C-377

LabourWatch's interventions into shaping public opinion on unions, labour legislation, and C-377 have been evident since the organization was formed in 2000. And while it speaks of workers' rights and democratic workplaces as paramount to successful labour relations, LabourWatch's "member driven" Board of Directors is populated exclusively by representatives from the accommodation, food services, and retail industries, along with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (cfib), and the Merit Contractors Association.12 Some of these organizations have lobbied to restrict access to collective bargaining rights for workers in various jurisdictions across Canada.13 Employer-side law firms also lend to the organization's mission. Information about LabourWatch is scarce since it does not publicly disclose financial statements, nor does it identify major contributors, but various sources indicate that the organization runs on annual revenues estimated between $50,000 and $100,000.14 LabourWatch's current president and leading advocate for C-377, John Mortimer, has held senior management positions with non-unionized companies like Future Shop and Wendy's Restaurants and has advised firms on how to remain "union-free" through decertification and opposing organizing campaigns. It is through this anti-union advocacy group that business associations attempt to shape labour policy and attitudes about organized labour in Canada. [Russ Hiebert], meanwhile, has described LabourWatch, which espouses on its website that it "it does not engage in any government lobbying to effect legislative change," as a "non-partisan" organization.15 The author of the LabourWatch-Nanos survey, Nik Nanos, recognized in 2012 by the Hill Times as Canada's most influential and best known pollster, offered further analysis on his poll's result at Merit Canada's 2012 International Open Shop Conference in Ottawa.53 Nanos stated that accountability and transparency was a "no brainer" and the poll result was a "slam dunk" for union disclosure.54 Furthermore, the poll "basically means that unions have a significant problem in terms of transparency" and "people expect value for what is being done and they expect a certain level of transparency." Nanos even commented on the relative costs of presumably implementing transparency legislation, one of the contentious issues related to C-377: "Twenty years ago [transparency] was expensive to do," he said. "Now with the Internet there's an expectatio