The postings referred to by Mandryk are: here and here.
Had Murray bothered to pick up the phone and call me to ask me his questions - I would have gladly responded and answered any questions or concerns he has.
You see, I'm not in charge of how political parties file their returns related to disclosure of political party revenues and expenditures. That is "their" legal obligation, not mine.
Mandryk seems to have completely missed the point - which is simply this: Business is participating in the electoral process in a very, very, very significant way. They contribute millions of dollars every year to political parties, and they lobby constantly. They occupy the halls of power (at every level) and they wield significant influence over political parties and over government policy. (Aided at every level by many in the main-stream media - which they own, and control).
The playing field is not level, and there are far more "suits" - "lawyers" - "representatives of the business crowd" - and "corporate lobbyists" constantly walking the halls of the legislatures and parliaments of this country than there are regular working stiffs.
So for some in the media to get righteously indignant that labour and unions are participating in the electoral process (all the while pretending that business is not) is quite frankly biased and distorted.
Workers and their unions have a rightful place in the electoral process:
"Free expression in the labour context benefits not only individual workers and unions, but also society as a whole. In Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union,  2 S.C.R. 211, the reasons of both La Forest and Wilson JJ. acknowledged the importance of the role played by unions in societal debate ......... As part of the free flow of ideas which is an integral part of any democracy, the free flow of expression by unions and their members ...... brings the debate on labour conditions into the public realm."
- Supreme Court of Canada, January 2002