At the end of September, Comment Editor James K.A. Smith will be presenting two lectures as part of The Bentall Lectures in Christian Theology through the Chair of Christian Thought at the University of Calgary. To read an interview with Smith in The Calgary Herald, click here.

"The cross is not, for me, a government approved decoration. My religious life is not a function of politically acceptable furnishings." Convivium Publisher Peter Stockland comments on Quebec's Charter plan to ban religious symbols. To read the full article, click here.

Listen to Comment Editor, Jamie Smith discuss institutions on Pittsburgh radio station 101.5 WordFM. Listen (starting at 12:06) here.

The Hamilton Spectator has come out in favour of open tendering legislation. "The status quo is deeply flawed in that it excludes dozens of potential bidders just because they are not covered by the union certification. Harris is right again when he says: 'I believe every qualified contractor should have the right regardless of their union affiliation, to work on publicly funded infrastructure.'"To read the full article, click here. Program Director, Work and Economics Brian Dijkema recently published a briefing note on open tendering.

Pop quiz: which Canadian politician was responsible for the first piece of legislation allowing trade unions in Canada? J.S. Woodsworth? Tommy Douglas? Ed Broadbent? The obvious answer — one might say the conservative Canadian answer — would be one of the above. The correct answer is, in fact, none of the above. None other than Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, passed the Trade Unions Act in 1872. You read that right: it was a Conservative prime minister who first legally recognized trade unions in Canada. That this would come as a surprise to many reflects our assumptions about the way conservatives react on the labour file, instead of leading in step with their principles. Recent efforts are a case in point. For those who haven’t been following, the current government’s efforts in labour relations reform have been limited to nibbling at the edges via private member’s bills. Bill C-377, which sought to force labour unions to disclose to everyone, not just their members, all spending over $5,000, loans over $250, and wages of employees making more than $100,000 The other attempt at reform was Bill C-525, which would require unions to achieve a threshold of support in workplaces of 50 per cent plus one of all employees (not just those who vote). In other words, it would require unions to receive a mandate not currently enjoyed by any current governing party in Canada, or any government in Canada ever. Bill C-525 didn’t make it to second reading, and Bill C-377 was deemed — by the normally compliant Senate, no less — so poorly written that it was infamously sent back to the House of Commons with amendments. Both of these bills are efforts to solve real problems with Canadian labour unions. Union spending on fringe causes — Israel apartheid week anyone? — is worthy of scrutiny. So are many of the deceptive practices unions use to get members in the door. But what both bills have in common is that they buy into the very adversarial mentality that many of the socialist labour unions in Canada have against conservatives. In doing so, the federal Conservatives (and conservatives) are letting the left frame the conversation instead of taking a page out of Macdonald’s book and charting their own course. Canadian labour law has not fundamentally changed since 1944 when Canada adopted the American model based on the Wagner Act of 1935. That model is based on the false premise that workers and owners are adversaries rather than parties with different, yet entwined interests. There are rumours the government is considering bringing back a version of C-377 this fall. Let us all hope it is not so. The choice facing the federal government over the summer is whether to continue symbolic tinkering with a broken model that diminishes mutual respect and trust, or to substantially reshape labour relations to account for the fact that workers and capital both win when they work co-operatively. The latter approach reflects values inherent to Conservative governments: recognition of the entwined nature of labour and capital, respect for the limited role of the state, and the value of private associations. Framing the debate according to conservative principles of limited government with a view to increasing competition between unions would break up the current anti-conservative labour monolith and, paradoxically, lead to the development of more unions. In other words, it would be good for workers, and good for the country. It would be a legacy worthy of Sir John A. Macdonald himself.

David Brooks mentions Comment Editor James K.A. Smith in his article on Charles Taylor's "The Secular Age". To read the full article, click here.

I again want to commend The Record for its fine work on reporting on the impact that closed tendering will have on construction costs and democratic vitality in the Region of Waterloo. But one small, but very important correction, needs to be made to Paige Desmond's article. The article says that Cardus' study "estimates unions drive up construction costs between two and 40 per cent." What our study states is that closed tendering drives up construction costs between two and 40 per cent. While this might seem a small correction, it is an important one. Why? Because there are a variety of unions that perform construction work. It is unfair to them to suggest that all of them will increase costs, especially since many unions will, in fact, be prevented from bidding if the carpenters' application succeeds. This is not a union versus non-union matter. The problem is that the carpenters are using provincial labour law to artificially eliminate competition. If they succeed, they will not win construction contracts because they provide the best value, but because they are using the hammer of provincial law to keep other qualified companies out. It is important to note that this labour law runs counter to other provincial laws, which forbid municipalities from allowing monopolies. A successful application by the carpenters will allow them to sidestep the competitive bidding process, which forces companies to provide greatest value for taxpayers' dollars and which provides the greatest opportunity for all taxpayers to work on projects paid for by their tax dollars.

Program Director, Brian Dijkema writes to the Waterloo Record regarding cost increases due to closed-tendering. Dijkema responds to the The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners' rejection of cost estimates. To read the full article, click here.