EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

CONTENTS

Wednesday 13 December 2000

Employment Standards Act, 2000, Bill 147, Mr Stockwell / Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi, projet de loi 147, M. Stockwell

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente

Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Hon Chris Stockwell, Minister of Labour
Mr John Hill, solicitor, Ministry of Labour

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Anne Stokes

Staff /Personnel

Ms Elizabeth Baldwin, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1535 in committee room 1.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

Consideration of Bill 147, An Act to revise the law related to employment standards / Projet de loi 147, Loi portant révision du droit relatif aux normes d'emploi.

The Chair (Mr Steve Gilchrist): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call the standing committee on general government to order to deal with clause-by-clause on Bill 147, An Act to revise the law related to employment standards.

Minister Stockwell has asked me whether the committee members would be amenable, given that we have relatively limited time, to dispense with the normal procedure of starting with the clauses that have no amendments and instead going right to the amendments.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): With flexibility. During comments, if someone chooses to make reference back to the main bill, they won't be ruled out of order.

The Chair: Absolutely, Mr Christopherson. Your observations at any time can be relevant to any section. But if the committee would prefer, we could start right with section 17, which is the first section with an amendment. Obviously at some point we would revert to section 1.

Is there unanimous agreement to do that?

Mr Christopherson: Again, Chair, I realize this was in the interests of saving time so we don't get lost in procedure, but on the other hand, just starting at amendment 1 and working our way through may or may not get us to some amendments that need to be talked about. I'm just wondering if we can't have some discretion on the part of each of the caucuses to put before the committee a particular amendment they wish to speak to.

The Chair: If you'd like, if the committee sees fit, we certainly can do that, Mr Christopherson, in which case are you suggesting we go into rotation and pick amendments?

Mr Christopherson: I'm flexible as to how you'd like to go, but that sounds good.

The Chair: Just so we have some order. All right, let's do that.

Mr Christopherson: And then limit it, if you will, so that at the end of the day each of us has had 20 minutes.

The Chair: I will certainly endeavour-if members respect the time, the Chair will certainly undertake to provide that.

We'll start first with the Liberals, if there's a particular amendment.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I'll defer to Dominic Agostino for the first comment.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): It would be government motion number 4, the amendment on the two-year period. As we said in the House today, we have a concern and maybe a question for the minister on this, as well. As I said in the House, the concern is now that when someone walks in the first day on the job, they're basically going to be forced to sign a two-year agreement for the averaging of overtime. Then they can only get out of it if both parties agree. That's a long period of time. We understand the explanation about the flexibility and the options and yes, it's only a maximum, but the reality is that we're talking about in this case the potential for five million mostly non-unionized, low-paid workers who don't have the clout and the ability of a union to represent them.

Frankly, we're talking about a lot of single moms, we're talking about a lot of new Canadians and new immigrants who will walk into a job situation and basically be forced to sign this two-year agreement. Let's face it: it is clearly to the employer's advantage and not to the worker's advantage to sign this two-year agreement. But often it will become, through the back door, a condition of employment and if they don't sign this they're not going to get the job or they'll be fired the next day. That's the concern we have when you look at this.

As you talk about the averaging out, maybe the minister can explain to me what would happen in a situation where, say, you took the four-week formula that is there, and someone-as of now it's 44 hours per week, and after 44 hours you get overtime. If someone in a four-week period worked 52 hours the first week, 40 the second, 40 the third and 40 the fourth week, that would average out to 43 hours per week over the period. Would they get any overtime under that provision?

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Labour): Only if they agreed not to get overtime.

Mr Agostino: If they signed to average it out over four weeks-

Hon Mr Stockwell: If they signed an agreement that said, "I want you to average my weekly pay, my weekly hours, over a four-week period, and I worked 52 hours one week and I want you explicitly to average those out over the next three weeks," so they cap out at 43 a week, sure, that could happen, but only on consent of the employee. If you're working 40, 40, 40 and 56, the employee would say, "No, I want the 44 to 56 as overtime."

Mr Agostino: But under the old rules, within that four-week period, you would automatically get overtime after 44 hours. If there's no agreement signed, if you work 52 hours the first week, after your 44-hour time, you would get your eight hours of overtime.

1540

Hon Mr Stockwell: Under the old system, if you applied for a permit, you could do exactly the same thing. By permit, you can average overtime by agreement with the employee. The employer could apply for the permit from the Ministry of Labour. The permit would then allow the employer to average overtime. That's no different. By simply getting a permit, you could do exactly that under the old system.

Mr Agostino: You don't see the potential here again. As much as you claim there's protection in here and provisions for complaining, can you understand though the potential that is there for the abuse, particularly of newer workers and younger workers?

The balance of power with an 18-year-old or 20-year-old kid working and an owner or employer in a small firm, a small company, non-unionized, as much as we want to talk in an ideal world, it would be the reality in the real world that it is not there. The power is with the employer. The employee is basically at the mercy of the owner of that company and his goodwill and his fairness. If that doesn't exist, then this new legislation forces him into a very difficult situation that they can't get out of for two years unless they both agree. Of course, if it is to the advantage of the employer, they're not going to agree.

The unfortunate part is we have such little time to debate and discuss all of these amendments. That's only one of the many concerns we have. Certainly I wish we actually had more time because I think this bill is significant. The concern generally with all of this is the fact that this bill has not had one minute, one second of public hearings.

There was consultation over the summer, in general; there was a white paper put out by the government. In many cases, members of the opposition were not invited to attend the hearings or the briefings that occurred. In some cases, members went. We think in a bill that impacts five million Ontarians, which is a significant amount of our population who could be faced with the repercussions of this bill, the government at least owed the opportunity to some of those people to come forward and tell us if they agreed or disagreed.

I have not heard from one working person in the province of Ontario who has called my office and said, "This is good. I want this bill." Certainly we know from the comments that have been made that business, the chamber of commerce, those folks are going to be very happy with this bill and are in support of this bill. I think it is extremely unfair that we have not had one second of public hearings on this bill. It is nothing short of a disgrace.

Interjection.

Mr Agostino: You don't have to tell me that you had the consultation over the summer; we know that. But the bill, as it is now in front of us, has not had one second of public hearings.

Hon Mr Stockwell: To go through the history of the thing, you understand that two or three years ago this process began under Elizabeth Witmer, who was Minister of Labour at the time. She issued a white paper seeking input from all the affected parties: unions, business, non-union sectors and so on. She received hundreds and hundreds of submissions. Upon receiving those submissions, we read them and we dealt with them. From those submissions we created the white paper in the summer. That white paper then was created through submissions given to us by the community out there; as I said, hundreds of them.

That white paper then was issued to everybody it affected. If you wrote in to us, you were given the white paper. If you were a union or anyone else we sent it out to your business organization, as well as the members of House and the opposition. Then, yes, we did tour that white paper. I invited both yourself and Mr Christopherson to appear to make a deputation. I understand Christopherson had some difficulty in Toronto and he went to Ottawa to make a deputation. I appreciate the fact that he made that effort. Furthermore, I actually invited the members in the communities I went to.

We took ads in all the local papers to inform the community and hopefully the member that we were coming in to that community to hold this public hearing-I misspoke myself. Lyn McLeod actually showed up in Thunder Bay and Mr Crozier showed up in Windsor.

Then we went around the province to five or six cities and held public hearings. I think we actually accommodated every single person who made a request to make a deputation, every one of them. It meant we had to add days at certain sites to make sure we gave everybody time to make their deputation. That was the genesis of the bill.

The bill fundamentally is factual and very, very close to what the white paper was. There were amendments made. Those amendments were put forward by the unions and the executive and those people who made those requests. We accommodated those, particularly in a section with respect to inspectors and their request that they need more power. They need a ton more power and we've increased their power significantly. A lot of those came from the legal clinics and the unions that we spoke to. So, yes, it hasn't received what you classify as a committee process of public hearings, but in a three-year period it got a lot of publication, a lot of debate, a lot of discussion and a lot of input from people in the province.

Mr Agostino: One more quick question. Where did the request for this bill come from? Was it labour unions? Was it working people who felt they wanted the 60-hour workweek and the overtime provision or did the initiative to change this legislation come from the business community?

Hon Mr Stockwell: There were two places, basically. One, it was in the Blueprint that we campaigned on in 1999. We spoke in the Blueprint to a flexible workweek and the kinds of amendments to the Employment Standards Act that would allow that. That's the first place. The second place was the number of permits we received, that the NDP government issued, that the Liberal government issued and that we issued; they were significant, thousands and thousands and thousands of permits to exempt them from the Employment Standards Act. It was getting to the point that with the exclusions we had in mining, hospitals, tourism, all these sectors, and the exemptions that we were allowing under the permit system, that we all allowed under the permit system, we were in the situation of getting close to having more people working outside of the Employment Standards Act than working inside the Employment Standards Act. So it became a process that we had a bill that was so arcane, archaic and outdated that there were more people working outside that bill than inside. That was the genesis of why we wanted to address the situation.

I'm not suggesting the unions support the bill. I understand their position. But I think they agreed at the outset that the bill needed to be addressed; it was arcane, archaic and it was contradictory in a number of places. I'm not going to tell you that they liked the outcome, that's not my position, but I think that everyone agreed, in the beginning at least, that the bill was seriously flawed and was not doing what it was supposed to do when it was adopted in 1968.

Mr Levac: I guess I would echo the concerns of my colleague Dominic and basically ask this question. Since October 1999, this particular government has used time allocation 20 times, and three or four of those particular bills used with time allocation-and I want to make it very clear that the entry into the discussion is one thing but after the fact is another. So what we're talking about is somebody who wants to say that the briefings and all of the ideas and your input was taken, but I want to make it very clear that was before the bill was drafted and completed and presented to the House. After the House presents that bill, time allocation gets presented in three, four now, very significant changes. Quotes from some of the ministers who are producing some of these bills are saying, "This is a fundamental change in the way we're going to operate with this bill." Time allocation was applied, particularly into a lot of the labour issues that we're seeing in our government today.

My concern is the balance between whether or not consultation is taking place before the bill's drafted and after the fact. We now have this bill before us, which has not had the consultation process after the fact to provide amendments. As a matter of fact, we have an entire binder filled with amendments from the government side, one from the NDP side, and from our side we've basically said it's going to take us the entire committee work because of time allocation to get through the bill itself. So inside of that, I'm going to ask this question. Is it the government's intention to continue to pass legislation with time allocation, with, after the fact, discussion and input by the province's citizens negated because of the way the rules work?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Let me say first off, I think there are 24 amendments in total-I could be off, I'm not sure-one from the NDP, 23 from us. It's a big bill. That's why we spent three years working on the bill. I'm not going to go into the history too much, but I sat in your place on a number of occasions and 23 amendments was not a significant number of amendments. In the NDP's term, I actually saw them produce more amendments than clauses in a bill, in some instances; literally hundreds of amendments to a bill that only had 99 clauses. So I wouldn't suggest that this is some kind of onerous, outstanding, unusual number of amendments when you get to 23, when you're dealing with a bill of this size.

1550

With respect to your argument about after the fact, before the fact, I guess we have a systemic disagreement. I feel that we've canvassed the communities and have done our best. I've heard the opposition and I've heard their complaints about the bill. I'm not trying to dismiss their complaints. I'm just suggesting that we have a fundamental disagreement. Those are the complaints that you've registered. I've tried to respond to them in the House as directly as I can. I believe, with the implementation of the new fines, the incarceration, the powers of inspection, the spot audits, the anonymous tips, the posting of your employees' rights-all these kinds of things work toward protecting that vulnerable worker that weren't in the bill before. Also, the fact that they can take any reprisal and reinsert somebody back into a job, they couldn't do before.

So if your question is, have I heard the issues, I think I've heard them clearly and I've tried to respond clearly. I guess you're saying my response isn't acceptable. I'm not surprised, but I believe the kinds of things we've implemented in this bill go a long way to protect employees that weren't there under the old Employment Standards Act.

Mr Levac: Just to comment on that, just a quick rebuttal. I would suggest to you respectfully that a lot of those things that you had to write into the bill weren't necessary because the previous legislation didn't require it.

Hon Mr Stockwell: You mean-

Mr Levac: A lot of the protections that you're saying are implemented in the bill that didn't exist before, maybe it was because a lot of the things that could be contemplated now because of the legislation weren't there in the first place. Therefore you didn't need to have the protections in place in order to do some of the things that you're saying you need to do.

Hon Mr Stockwell: With respect, you're the only person saying that, then. Basically everybody, from the NDP to the unions to the Liberals to ourselves, was saying you've got to give more powers to the inspectors because there are shortcomings here. The shortcomings are they don't have the power to reinstate, so if somebody actually wanted to complain about their employer and then their employer appealed it, they'd be out of work for six months-no paycheque, no food to put on the table, nothing. They couldn't pay their bills while this appeal was made to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. So this employee would be out of luck. Under our new provision they can make the appeal, but if the inspector says, "You're going back to work," you go back to work. You get paid while that appeal is being registered and you won't miss a day's pay. So with great respect, I'm not sure that's true.

Secondly, there's this misconception under the old permit system that somehow these are kind of new initiatives. The vast majority of the thousands and thousands and thousands of permits we issued, you issued and the NDP issued talked about extending work hours beyond 48, sometimes beyond 60, averaging overtime, one day off at a time rather than a weekly process.

The thing with the permit that was unacceptable to me was it ran forever. Once you got a permit, you never had to reapply. What we're saying in our amendments is that's not good. You can only make the agreement to work these conditions for a maximum of two years and the employee can invoke anything less than two years-two months, three months.

This misconception on the permit system was some kind of fantasy that somehow the permit system gave you protection. Once you got the permit, you were completely unprotected. So I don't agree with you.

Mr Levac: That's fair. Just one last quick question, and it will require a two-second answer.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I'll be the judge of that.

Mr Levac: Believe me, Chris, you'll hear it. How many inspectors do you plan to hire?

Hon Mr Stockwell: We're going to increase inspection staff by 20%. In whole numbers, we basically have around 100. We're going to hire 20 more inspectors.

Mr Christopherson: Just to respond to the minister, first of all, on your commentabout the permit system, I don't think anyone would disagree that the permit system needed to be looked at, but the idea that the best thing for the permit system was to throw it out entirely and keep the ministry out of workplaces in terms of the amount of hours that people have to work is the wrong way to go. Just to say that there were problems, as your government has done on many occasions-identify a problem and then say, "We've identified it, we're going to do something, and therefore you should believe it's better." No, in most of those cases you've identified a problem, stepped in and done something and made it even worse. Eliminating the permit system is going to make it worse.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Well-

Mr Christopherson: Let me mention all my issues and then you can respond. First of all, there's our position and comment with regard to the permit system. Of course, that's impossible to do with the obscene shortness of the time that's available.

Also, you spoke with great pride just a few minutes ago, Minister, about how your law makes sure that inspectors have the power to reinstate a worker who has been wrongly dismissed for whatever reason. You thought that was an important measure because people have bills to pay and food to put on the table. I just wish that you, as the Minister of Labour, would also apply that to someone who's been fired because of an organizing drive. We used to have legislation in this province that said that the board-

Interruption.

The Chair: Order. To the people in the gallery, I'm awfully indulgent as the Chair, but we're going to get through this without any demonstrations, please. I want to make sure that the opposition members have as many minutes as possible to make their point here, so please, no demonstrations.

Mr Christopherson: Prior to your Bill 7, the board had the ability and used it very effectively so that people weren't intimidated in the workplace. If you feel so strongly about people who are wronged, then you ought to take a look at the situation at Drycore, where we have a number of workers who have been off the job. It will be a year, I think, by the time they get in front of a board and have their hearing. Where, then, is your argument about their having to pay bills and put food on the table? Why does your government feel that it's OK in the one instance to deny people the ability to pay their bills and put food on the table, but in this instance you want to brag about it?

I mentioned this in the House, and I want to say it again for purposes of today: there is a world of difference between a public meeting that you may choose to call a hearing, a public meeting, a gathering or Chris's gaggle of friends, versus a committee like this, where we have a bill in front of us, we have a procedure, we have a Chair, we have staff and we have opportunities, as the opposition, to ask questions, to engage in debate. That's a whole lot different than you sitting in a rented room in a hotel having people come in where you control entirely what happens inside that room.

Further to that, you mentioned Elizabeth Witmer's bill when she was minister, in terms of changing the Employment Standards Act. That was Bill 49. That was a bill that your government said was just housekeeping; nothing major in there. We went on the road for four weeks. At the end of it, there were significant changes: both withdrawals in terms of initiatives the government had undertaken because of public pressure and improvements in areas where it was just a bad bill-because of the construction parts of the bill that could have been improved, and were, as a result.

To suggest that somehow Bill 49 takes you off the hook or that your little gatherings, before the bill was tabled, are supposed to compensate for a lack of decent time here and now doesn't hold, not by a long shot. Further to that, if you need further evidence, the bill is different than what you talked about. The discussion paper, the white paper you circulated, didn't have legal language, didn't have the actual clauses for us to look at in terms of understanding the legal implications.

It is absolutely insulting to suggest that today a whole new bill that replaces five other bills and 24 pages of amendments can be dealt with basically in an hour-because after 4:30 today we can't talk any more; it's all straight voting. You're going to win every vote, 10 times out of 10, because you've got a majority. That somehow that constitutes any kind of review that has meaning under any definition is absurd.

I know what you have to say as a minister, but you know in your heart that this is a sham. The only reason you're ramming this through is because you want to head off the kind of public outrage that is beginning to grow now. It is really just starting to take effect now. The room is full. We've had protests in downtown Toronto. We've had occupations of offices. If there were enough time to look at this, I believe you'd be forced to back down in some areas. You don't want that. That's why you've made sure this thing is going to be quick and dirty, in and out today. By the time people realize what has hit them in the new year, it's already going to be law. That's your game plan. We know it and in your heart of hearts you know that's what's going on too. This process is a joke and an insult to the people of Ontario.

1600

If I can, I'd like to talk about three specific amendments, in no particular order. I would draw to the attention of the minister our amendment, the only one we brought in. You have said on many occasions that nobody needs to worry about the horrible aspects of this bill because they all have the right to voluntarily say no. You're prepared to say it, but you're not prepared to put it in the law.

Our amendment covers off a number of the major areas of concern that people have, that we have and that we've been hearing about. I heard what you said in the House. I heard what you said to me in our short discussion before question period. I've taken a look at this law. For the life of me, I can't understand where you feel you have the right to say no to codifying in law the very things you're prepared to verbally say people have rights to.

I'm asking you, Minister, why will you not accept an amendment that says people have the right-and it just spells them out specifically, so that employers and employees know their rights and obligations. It merely states it, because the reprisal section, section 18, does not cover this. We've mentioned the after 48 hours, splitting the 30-minute meal break into two sections, the averaging of overtime and the vacation in terms of shorter periods taken in small clumps of time.

We said, "At the very least, put that in there as a new sub (9) to ensure that everybody understands what you have said they have rights to verbally." Why won't you put that in the bill?

Hon Mr Stockwell: OK. I'll respond in order. The permit system: the rationale for the permit system is simply this. We would have a series of civil servants working on a permit system who were spending time rubber-stamping permits. Basically, that's what it came down to. They weren't going out and actively inspecting or seeking whether or not the employees agreed or didn't agree with the employer's request. It was simply too onerous because we were issuing so many permits. It was becoming too big a job.

Rather than use those people to rubber-stamp permits, it seemed to me it would be more intelligent to hire inspectors who could actively get out into the workplace and get to those places where people needed inspections and needed protection. That was my take on it. I didn't really think it was sensible for government to pay people to rubber-stamp permits. Why not take that money and use it for inspection, to put teeth in the bill to protect the vulnerable worker? That would have been far wiser money spent by any government. I think if any of you were in power, you would have agreed to that. It's a better way to spend money.

With respect to the intimidation possibilities, this is the clause in the Employment Standards Act that we brought forward. There are many areas on which you and I disagree.

Mr Christopherson: We're not going to get to debate those because there's not enough time.

Hon Mr Stockwell: No, but we've had a very vigorous debate about these over the years, for sure, and certainly in the last few months. That's just our approach to this with the Employment Standards Act. That's why we wanted to hire these, to protect those vulnerable workers out there. They are there; I don't deny it. There are bad employers out there. I've said it on a number of occasions. The bad employers need to be vigorously prosecuted. But if you're using people to stamp permits, you're not spending the money to get inspectors out there to vigorously prosecute them.

As far as the public hearings are concerned, Chris's gaggle of friends, that includes Sid Ryan, Anne Dubas and all those folks from all the unions from across this province. This was no Chris's gaggle of friends. This was virtually dominated by the unions, union executive, legal aid clinics and workers' associations. There were two or three deputations in the whole time-maybe more than two or three, but a few-from chambers of commerce or business associations. The vast majority came from the union side.

We accommodated every single person who requested to make a deputation. They had half an hour for their deputations. Every single person who asked to make a deputation, we accommodated. We heard from them all. There were demonstrations. Mr Ryan organized a demonstration during his period. It wasn't like I was hiding in the weeds. We were out front meeting with the people, giving them the opportunity, making the demonstration-there was certainly some media attention as well.

Legal language: the reason we didn't use the legal language-and as far as you're concerned I can't help but come back to the social contract when you talk about public hearings. That debate has been had and I've used it before, but, my goodness, when you changed labour legislation it gutted collective agreements for public servants all across the province, hundreds of thousands of them. You didn't have five seconds of public hearings. You didn't have a white paper. You didn't have five seconds, so I'm not sure you have a really good leg to stand on, on that one.

With respect to legal language, you're right. I asked them not to produce the white paper in legal language. That was my request. I take that. I didn't produce it in legal language because I thought it would be counterproductive to send this out to a bunch of people around the province who are not lawyers, and then put it in legal language they couldn't understand. It didn't make sense to me to get a bunch of lawyers to draft up a white paper for people to scratch their heads over.

We did it in non-technical language. We did it in layman's language that we use when we debate the bill in the House, quite often on a number of occasions. Some of us aren't lawyers. We often review this stuff with lawyers; we have that capacity. But many people in the province who read the white paper don't have access to a lawyer to have it explained it to them. Yes, that's what I did. We converted their recommendations into language for the bill. So, yes, I did that.

There are two very important points about your amendments. Your amendments deal with three or four very specific parts of the legislation.

Mr Christopherson: Exactly.

Hon Mr Stockwell: The bill gives the employees the right to refuse across the entire bill. There are dozens and dozens of sections within the bill that they have the right to refuse. If we inserted your amendments-that is all covered in the bill, that is all covered in different sections of the bill-then we would be inserting in the bill a tremendous ambiguity, because the body of the bill would say, "The employee has the right to refuse in all these cases." But then we'd throw this in that says, "And the employee has the right to refuse in these three or four specific cases." That then means, if it gets challenged, that a judge or a court is going to have to say, "Which part of the bill is right here? Do you only have the right to refuse on these three or four, or is the body of the bill right, where you can refuse on dozens and dozens of sections of the bill?"

It's restrictive. This would take rights away from employees. It would remove their rights. It would take a right that we've built into this, that they could refuse certain parts of the job, and it would say that they could no longer refuse it because we've got an ambiguous section in the bill that says they only have the right to refuse on three or four issues.

I tried to explain it to you. I appreciate the fact that you don't agree, but my legal counsel whom I have consulted at the Ministry of Labour, at the Attorney General's office, and legislative counsel who drafted the bill said, "This is not going to do anything but hinder employees' rights."

Mr Christopherson: OK. Quickly, then, to respond, because I don't want to keep debating on the non-amendment issues, I still would say to you that if you'd said that as part of the process you wanted to sit down and look at how we might improve the permit system and invited submissions on how that might happen, then we probably would have a very different bill right now. I can tell you, the labour movement believes that there ought to be some permit system in place. They recognize its imperfections. Former Labour Minister Bob Mackenzie was very clear that he didn't agree with it either, but just throwing the whole thing out doesn't necessarily, and certainly doesn't in this case, make it better, Minister. The problem is, you didn't invite anybody. There's nobody here who's been given a chance to come to the end of the table and tell us what they think about the permit system, or anything else for that matter.

Next, you commented about the fact that most of your public hearings were dominated by unions who made presentations. Well, let me tell you, we all know your business friends have got all the access they need to you and every other minister, so of course they don't have to utilize any kind of public process. It's everybody else who's left trying to beg and scrape an opportunity to have a minute of the minister's ear.

With regard to your comments about this bill, you know I'm not a lawyer and you're not a lawyer. In fact, our backgrounds and our level of formal education are very similar. I might be right and you might be right, but you know what? We're not going to get any opportunity to bring in a different legal point of view because there are different legal opinions. That's why we have courts. So you may decide that there's a great comfort level for you to stand behind your ministry lawyers. That by no means suggests it's the end of the debate. In fact, it's just the beginning of the debate, except we're not going to get a chance to have that debate.

So your argument doesn't hold. If there's a legal problem with the way this is worded, I would still leave it with you, Minister. There is nothing under the reprisal section that gives legal force to the voluntary aspect that you've given verbal attention to but no legal attention. To say to me that somehow it detracts under the reprisal section of section 18 may or may not be true, but to dismiss the whole thing out of hand, to emphasize under every section where you can that an employer is not to intimidate and an employee doesn't have to accept intimidation, I would suggest to you is inviting employers to intimidate and that's exactly what's going to happen, and I think you know that.

1610

I want to move on, if I can, to two other amendments. One is the amendment that I raised with you in the House with regard to the two years. I believe Dominic raised it also. Under this amendment, as we understand it-I want you to tell me where you think this is a misinterpretation-here's a scenario: somebody gets hired for a job. They don't have a legal background. The limited formal education you and I have looks like tons of formal education compared to where this individual is at. They may or may not have English as their first language, but they go in and they're thankful beyond belief that they've got an opportunity for a job because they haven't been able to find one for months and months. Those of us who have been in that position can understand the mindset when you walk in and they say to you, "You've got the job. You can start on Monday. The only thing we need to do is sign a few papers here."

How many of us remember those papers or give any thought to whether you're going to sit back and say, "Well, hang on a second now. Let me just check this out to see if I agree"? That is not how you're going to start your new workplace employment. The fact of the matter is, you're going to sign the income tax forms that it takes, any WCB or WSIB forms it takes, and if they put one in front of you and they say to you, "This is the policy. It's the new government law. This merely gives legal effect to the law," and you sign your name on the dotted line, at that moment, unless your employer agrees to release you from that agreement, you are now bound for those two years to live with overtime averaging, which means you're going to get screwed out of overtime. I'd like you to tell me, Minister, where legally I've got this wrong.

Hon Mr Stockwell: If you're saying to me that you walk in there and you sign things that you haven't read or that you're not understanding etc, it's very difficult for me to make an argument with you, because the simple fact is the system today is built on agreements, many agreements. The system we got for permits is based on agreement. It's no different. If you have an employer who applies for a permit, it's based on the fact that the employees agree to these terms and conditions.

At some point in time, in order to have a permit system or any other system, there's got to be a process put in place that asks for agreement between the employee and the employer. So I say to the member, it's not different from the old system. Under the old system, the employer would file for a permit based on the fact he had agreement from an employee or if the employee wanted to work there with this permit, he would hire them based on those conditions of the permit.

Mr Christopherson: But my point-

Hon Mr Stockwell: But the point that I think you should make, too, is this: what was the difference when you did the Sunday shopping law? It's the same thing. When you apply for a job where you've got to work on Sundays, the employer says, "Well, you're working on Sundays." It's the same law that you put in. So the person has to work on Sundays; it happens all the time.

Mr Christopherson: There's a world of difference between understanding that you're going to work on Sunday versus giving away money that you're otherwise entitled-

Hon Mr Stockwell: Well-

Mr Christopherson: Wait a minute now. I'm talking about a scenario. You know what? Even if they do understand what the law is, I'm suggesting that people are going to feel pressured. I'm giving you the good case scenario; I'm not giving you the one where they're quietly taken aside and there are absolutely no witnesses and they're told very clearly, "You better sign this thing, because you haven't been performing up to snuff lately and I've got a whole lot of people who are anxious to come in here and they'll work for less money. So you'd better sign this thing and agree to it or you're out the door." If you think that's not going to happen, you live in a different Ontario than I do.

The fact of the matter is, that's the bad case scenario. I'm pointing out to you one that is very likely to happen, where people are told, "Look, here's the new law the government just brought in. It is the policy of this company that we ask our employees to sign the form." When you're hired as a new employee, you are so anxious you'll say yes to just about anything. What I'm saying to you, Minister, is that under your law, when you sign on the bottom line, you now agree to give away overtime pay for up to two years unless your employer agrees to take you off the hook. Why are you doing that to people? Why would you subject them to that kind of situation?

Hon Mr Stockwell: Because it's the same as you were doing. It's the same situation, by permit.

Interruption.

The Chair: Order.

Hon Mr Stockwell: By permit, you allowed exactly the same situation. You issued a permit to the employer. The employer now has a right to average overtime. If you wanted to work with that employer, the difference was, it wasn't two years, it was forever. You subjected them to that forever. This is time-limiting that. They're saying that after the two years you need to go back and get approval. Under the old system, the permit system, you got a permit to average the overtime. You wanted to work in a place that had a permit that could average overtime? You had to work under those terms and conditions for the rest of your life. How's that better?

Mr Christopherson: You know what, Minister? If we had the time in committee-now listen, hear me out-we could ask you and say, "Deliver us the number of permits here of people who have wilfully given away their overtime." I'd like to know. I think the people here would like to know. How many people? Don't just give us your word; make the case. Put the material in front of us. Make the case. Because you know what? I don't think there are that many people who, with ministry approval, have given away their right to overtime pay for their entire work life. I just don't happen to believe that's the case. I'd like to see you come in here and make that argument. I don't think there's anybody in their right mind that would agree to averaging, first of all. The only way they would do it is if they were coerced or hoodwinked, and either way, you've made that legal and it's wrong.

Hon Mr Stockwell: You're suggesting to me that under the permit system the only people that agreed to averaging overtime were coerced or hoodwinked. You, your government and the Liberal government, were a party-

Mr Christopherson: Show me how many there are, Chris.

Hon Mr Stockwell: -duplicitous-

Mr Christopherson: Show me how many, Minister. Don't talk hypotheticals.

The Chair: Mr Christopherson, you'd asked for at least a third and I've actually gone longer than that. I don't know if there are any government members. If there aren't-

Mr Christopherson: Out of all 24 amendments, we've dealt with two. I asked to deal with three. I haven't even had a chance to deal with that number. It's frustrating because I want to speak and you won't let me speak, and if you won't let me speak-

Interruption.

The Chair: Come to order or I'll clear the room. And while we do that, the clock is still ticking and Mr Christopherson will get no further chance to say anything.

The committee recessed from 1619 to 1622.

The Chair: I call the committee back to order and invite any further comments. We've got a few minutes. You mentioned you had a third amendment?

Mr Christopherson: I did, Mr Chair, if you'll give me just one second. I guess there are ministry staff who can answer a question.

The Chair: Yes, or the parliamentary assistant is here.

Mr Christopherson: I believe your amendment 20 makes reference to subsection 140(1), and you're adding paragraph 8.1, where it now only goes to 8. It deals with this whole issue of the voluntary nature of getting into agreements in 17(1). Under "hours of work," some of the very issues we've been dealing with this afternoon, you've now added-I wanted to know what the implication of 8.1 is in plain language, please.

The Chair: Could I invite ministry staff to come forward to the witness table.

Mr John Hill: Perhaps it would help if I began by explaining the cross-references.

Subsection 17(2) is the provision that allows the agreements to work in excess of the presumptive limits, which are eight hours a day, or a regular workday, if that's longer than eight hours, and the weekly limit of 48 hours.

Clause 17(1)(a) is the daily hour limit which, as I said, is eight hours per day, or if a regular workday has been established of longer than eight hours, whatever that regular workday is.

Subsection 17(3) is the provision that allows an agreement to work hours in excess of those limits to be revoked by the employee upon two weeks' notice. What this provision says is that if you make an agreement to work hours in excess of the daily limits-not the weekly limits but the daily limits-and you make that agreement at the point of hiring and it's approved by the director of employment standards, then that agreement is irrevocable unless both parties-the employee and the employer-agree that it may be resolved.

Mr Christopherson: And that is related to agreements for working 60 hours? Help me out a bit.

Mr Hill: That's the agreement to work hours in excess of the daily limit, which is eight hours or the regular workday, whichever, and not the weekly limit.

Mr Christopherson: So if you agree to work beyond eight hours a day on a regular basis, then there is a permit that the ministry issues-is that what you're saying to me?-and it can't be revoked unless both the employer and employee agree.

Mr Hill: Yes. For example, if I agree to work four 12-hour shifts a week, and I make that agreement at the point at which I'm hired, and that agreement is approved by the director of employment standards, that agreement is irrevocable unless both parties say it can be revoked.

Mr Christopherson: Is that normal? Is that a change?

Mr Hill: Under the existing legislation, the question of whether agreements are revocable is simply not addressed. I don't think there's any clear legal answer to the question of what happens if I make an agreement to work a certain number of hours at the point at which I'm hired and then later purport to say, "I'm going to take that back. I don't want to work those hours any more."

I don't think there's a clear answer under the existing legislation as to what happens. It says that you cannot work an employee more than eight per day or 48 per week without the consent of the employee, but it doesn't say what happens if consent has been given and the employee later tries to take it back. Subsection 17(3) of the act was an attempt to address the question of whether these agreements can be revoked or not. It said, yes, you can make these agreements but they are revocable upon two weeks' notice. This new provision, paragraph 8.1, would allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council, ie, the cabinet, the power to make a regulation to create an exception to that in the case of agreements to work hours in excess of the daily limits, where it's done at the time of hire and the director of employment standards has approved.

Mr Christopherson: Only under those two circumstances?

Mr Hill: That's right.

Mr Christopherson: Not a subsequent agreement? If there were a subsequent agreement, how would that differ?

Mr Hill: If it's not an agreement that's made at the time of hire-if originally the company had five eight-hour shifts per week and they said, "We want to go to a four-day week with 12-hour shifts," at some point after the time I'm hired, this regulation wouldn't have any impact on that. If at some point after the point of hiring the employer wants to change the configuration of the workweek, and the employee agreed, the employee can withdraw that agreement upon two weeks' notice. It won't affect that.

Mr Christopherson: All right. The four 12s is something I know they have at Dofasco and other major places. Firefighters have things like that. So that's probably the nice, pristine example of where you would use this.

What would happen to somebody who hired someone and said, "I expect you to be available to work. Your regular workday is eight hours a day, and once you sign this and start the job, then we'll get a permit that allows that," assuming an employer would even say that much. Is there not the potential here for someone to inadvertently bind themselves to a longer workday that they can't get out of unless the employer agrees, or have I got it wrong?

Mr Hill: Inadvertently? I think the agreement is going to have to say what the upper limit on the daily hours would be.

Mr Christopherson: Yes, but say it's seven or whatever or-

Mr Hill: There's still a 48-hour weekly limit that this doesn't impact upon. So, could somebody do it inadvertently? I suppose if the agreement that was put in front of the employee said, "OK, you may be required to work up to 11 hours a day," or whatever, and at that point the employee doesn't have a regular workday of 11 hours-it's eight hours-but the employer is putting this agreement in front of the employee to work up to 11 hours a day, and the employee agrees and signs it, yes, that would be irrevocable. Would they be doing it inadvertently? I guess that is a possibility, if they don't realize the significance of the fact that the agreement is saying 11 hours, even though the established workweek at that place is eight hours. It's possible.

Mr Christopherson: So we have created a potential for new problems here that wouldn't have been there under existing legislation.

Mr Hill: What I said is premised on the fact that they did not realize the significance of the agreement saying, "I may be required to work up to 11 hours a day."

1630

Mr Christopherson: One more quick question. I know I'm probably on borrowed time, believe it or not.

Are you a lawyer?

Mr Hill: Yes, I am.

Mr Christopherson: In your professional opinion, are there any changes in here that are more than just what one might classify as housekeeping?

Mr Hill: If you'll give me a moment, I'll review them very quickly and let you know.

Mr Christopherson: You're getting more time to review than we did.

While that's going on, just to take advantage of the time if I can, the cameras are gone. I was going to read the Hansard at this stage. I've got to tell you, though, somewhere down the line, this has got to stop. You can't do this. You can't keep ramming through legislation and having no review, no clause-by-clause at all. There's no review here. I don't expect anybody to respond to this, but you know there's no way to respond to the question of fairness or adequacy of having all of us at least take a look at these things. There just no justification on earth for doing this.

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Mr Chair, if I may? I think we've given the courtesy to the member. He doesn't have to keep knocking us at every turn. It is unfair. He should be appreciative of the opportunity each time that has been given to him.

Mr Christopherson: Should be appreciative?

The Chair: We have something here we are awaiting. Have you got your answer?

Mr Hill: If no one minds, I will rely on a list prepared by our policy branch which divides amendments between substantive and other types of amendments rather than review each one myself. I can explain from that list which are the ones they've identified as substantive.

The motion for section 17 is different than what you see in the bill because it allows the employer to establish a regular workday of more than eight hours.

Mr Christopherson: I guess I really can't ask questions. He can give his answer and then we are on-

The Chair: Might I ask how long you think your answer is going to be here?

Mr Hill: There are six amendments that have been classified as substantive on this sheet.

Mr Christopherson: I'll shut up if you'll let him answer that.

The Chair: I'll tell you what. Why don't you just cite which six they are.

Mr Hill: The motion for section 19: if an unforeseen situation occurs, this is where public services have to be maintained. It allows, in effect, an emergency exception to maintain public services, and in that case exceed the hours-of-work limit. We've added at the beginning that it is if something unforeseen occurs, to make it clear that this is to deal with an emergent situation.

Subsection 22(2): this is to provide for the grandparenting of existing averaging agreements. It also deals with some administrative aspects such as whether agreements can be renewed, whether they can be revoked.

Sections 46 and 48: these are virtually identical amendments. It requires an employee who does not intend to return to work upon the conclusion of her leave to give the employer four weeks' notice of that fact. There's a parallel amendment for the parental leave provision.

Section 18: there are two aspects to this motion. The bill language talks about performing "active duties." The motion would change that to performing "work." We found there is a lot of confusion, more than we anticipated, about what active duties are, as opposed to inactive duties for a worker, so we've just talked about work. If there are problems of what "work" means, that can be taken care of in regulations because there is a power to define terms.

At the end of subsection (3), this is the provision that requires that there be at least eight hours between shifts. There are certain situations where it might be advantageous to both parties for the employee to agree to work a successive shift even though fewer than eight hours have passed. In that case, the change in subsection (3) would allow that to be waived in effect if the employee agrees.

The last one identified as substantive-paragraph 8.1 I believe we've spoken about already. The other motion which is really coupled with that is section 140. It is adding three new subsections, (8), (9) and (10). Let me just refresh my memory here. This was the approval that the director of employment standards could give where the employee at the point of hire agrees to work more than eight hours per day.

Subsection (8) would allow the director to impose conditions in granting an approval and also to rescind the approval if the director wishes at a later date.

Subsection (9) is a clarification provision which says that even though this agreement has been made, you cannot work more than 10 hours per day except in the emergency conditions which are identified in section 19 of the bill.

Subsection (10), another precaution: if under the agreement that the employee has signed they are working both more than eight hours per day and 48 hours per week, as we've indicated with paragraph 8.1, in certain circumstances that agreement could be irrevocable insofar as the daily hours are concerned. Subsection (10), though, makes it clear that the part of the agreement that pertains to the weekly hour limit is revocable in accordance with subsection 17(3).

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate that detailed answer.

With that, we've certainly made allowance for any time lost for the demonstration.

Pursuant to an order of the House, seeing that it is 4:30 of the clock, the committee must move promptly into clause-by-clause, the actual votes. Every question is deemed to be put. That means we don't even read the motion. We will simply proceed on the basis of the numbers on the upper right-hand corner of each page. I will put the questions in order, first by section and then as we get to the various amendments.

Shall section 1 carry?

Mr Christopherson: Recorded vote.

The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 1 is carried.

Shall section 2 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 2 is carried.

Shall section 3 carry?

Mr Christopherson: Recorded vote.

The Chair: All those in favour?

Interjection.

The Chair: We seem to have a difference of opinion, but I will defer to the expertise of the clerks. In the case of a recorded vote, all sections or amendments that have that request are moved to the bottom. Then you can have a 20-minute recess to vote on that. If it is your wish to do that-or are you indicating you're going to be asking for a recorded vote to all sections and amendments?

Mr Christopherson: Yes, they're all going to be recorded vote requests.

1640

The Chair: Then the committee will-I'd hate to say, "I told you so," to a clerk. May I suggest to the committee members that we not take a 20-minute recess? Agreed? Thank you.

A recorded vote was requested for section 3.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 3 is carried.

Shall section 4 carry?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 4 is carried.

All those in favour of section 5?

Interjections.

The Chair: I'm skipping one step of the process, anticipating what's the likely answer.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 5 is carried.

All those in favour of section 6?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 6 is carried.

All those who believe section 7 should carry?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 7 is carried.

All those in favour of section 8 carrying?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 8 is carried.

All those in favour of section 9 carrying?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 9 is carried.

All those in favour of section 10 carrying?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 10 is carried.

All those in favour of section 11 carrying?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 11 is carried.

All those in favour of section 12?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 12 is carried.

All those in favour of section 13 carrying?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 13 is carried.

Section 14.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 14 is carried.

Section 15.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 15 is carried.

Section 16.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 16 is carried.

Amendment 1, the government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Shall section 17, as amended, carry?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 17, as amended, is carried.

Amendment 2, government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Shall section 18, as amended, carry?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 18, as amended, is carried.

In section 19, we have amendment 3, a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Shall section 19, as amended, carry?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: I didn't know whether to take from that silence an acquiescence, but I take it not.

Section 19, as amended, is carried.

All those in favour of section 20 carrying?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Actually, in deference to the clerk's voice, section 20 is carried.

Section 21.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 21 is carried.

The fourth amendment, in section 22, a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Shall section 22, as amended, carry?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 22, as amended, is carried.

The fifth amendment is in section 23, a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Shall section 23, as amended, carry?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 23, as amended, is carried.

I will, in the interests of greater clarity, for government motion number 6, break it down and ask the question on each section, up to and including the new section 29.1. So you will be voting, in effect, for subsections of the motion you see on page 6.

All those in favour of the amendment to section 24?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: The amendment to section 24 is carried.

The amendment to section 25: all those in favour? Oh, I beg your pardon. We will simply consider that the only amendment within section 24.

Shall section 24, as amended, carry? I didn't hear a no, so it carries.

Interjection.

The Chair: No, I'm asking whether that was acquiescence.

Mr Christopherson: No.

The Chair: OK, that's fine. A recorded vote on each section.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That section is carried, as amended.

The amendment to section 25, a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Section 25, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 25, as amended, is carried.

The amendment from page 6, a government motion amending section 26.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Section 26, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 26, as amended, is carried.

The amendment to section 27, government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Section 27, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 27, as amended, is carried.

The amendment to section 28, government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Section 28, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That section is carried.

The amendment to section 29, government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Section 29, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That section is carried, as amended.

The new section 29.1, government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Section 29.1, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That section is carried.

Section 30.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That section is carried.

Section 31.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That section is carried.

Section 32.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 32 is carried.

Section 33.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Levac.

The Chair: That section is carried.

Section 34.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 34 is carried.

Section 35.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 35 is carried.

Section 36.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 36 is carried.

The next amendment is to section 37; it's government motion number 7.

1650

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Section 37, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 37, as amended, is carried.

Section 38.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 38 is carried.

Section 39.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 39 is carried.

Section 40.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 40 is carried.

Section 41.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 41 is carried.

Section 42: All those in favour?

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Anne Stokes): Mrs Munro, Mr Barrett, Mr Chudleigh, Mr Gill.

The Chair: Opposed?

Interjection.

The Chair: I beg your pardon. So you're in favour?

Interjection.

The Chair: OK. My apologies. We're still on "all those in favour."

Clerk of the Committee: Mr Agostino, Mr Levac, Mr Christopherson.

The Chair: Section 42 is carried.

Section 43.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 43 is carried.

Section 44.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 44 is carried.

Section 45.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 45 is carried.

The next motion is found at page 8, a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Section 46, as amended: all those in favour?

Clerk of the Committee: Mrs Munro, Mr Barrett, Mr Chudleigh, Mr Gill.

The Chair: Opposed?

Interjection.

The Chair: Let me do that again. There seems to be some doubt around the table. All those in favour of section 46, as amended?

AYES

Agostino, Barrett, Christopherson, Chudleigh, Gill, Levac, Munro.

The Chair: Section 46, as amended, is carried.

Section 47.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 47 is carried.

The next amendment is found at page 9, a government motion.

AYES

Agostino, Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Levac, Munro.

NAYS

Christopherson.

The Chair: The amendment is carried.

Section 48, as amended.

AYES

Agostino, Barrett, Christopherson, Chudleigh, Gill, Levac, Munro.

The Chair: Section 48, as amended, is carried.

Section 49.

AYES

Agostino, Barrett, Christopherson, Chudleigh, Gill, Levac, Munro.

The Chair: Section 49 is carried.

Section 50.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 50 is carried.

Section 51.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 51 is carried.

Section 52.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 52 is carried.

Section 53.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 53 is carried.

Section 54.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Thank you. The next amendment you'll find at page 10. It's a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Section 55, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 55, as amended, is carried.

Section 56.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 56 is carried.

Section 57.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 57 is carried.

The next amendment you'll find on page 11. It's a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Section 58, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 58, as amended, is carried.

Section 59.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 59 is carried.

Section 60.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 60 is carried.

Section 61.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 61 is carried.

Section 62.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 62 is carried.

Section 63.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 63 is carried.

Section 64.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 64 is carried.

Section 65.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 65 is carried.

Section 66.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 66 is carried.

Section 67.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 67 is carried.

Section 68.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 68 is carried.

Section 69.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 69 is carried.

Section 70.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 70 is carried.

Section 71.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 71 is carried.

Section 72.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 72 is carried.

The next amendment you'll find on page 12. It's the NDP motion.

AYES

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

NAYS

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

The Chair: That amendment fails.

Section 73.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 73 is carried.

Section 74.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 74 is carried.

Section 75.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 75 is carried.

Section 76.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 76 is carried.

Section 77.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 77 is carried.

Section 78.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 78 is carried.

Section 79.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 79 is carried.

In deference to the clerk's voice, it would be acceptable to have a recorded vote for a number of sections together, if that meets with your approval. Would that be fine?

Looking forward to where the next amendment is-section 107-the question would be on sections 80 through 106.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Sections 80 through 106 are carried.

Section 107 includes an amendment. You'll find it on page 13. It's a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Section 107, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 107, as amended, is carried.

Section 108.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 108 is carried.

Section 109.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

1700

The Chair: Section 109 is carried.

Section 110.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 110 is carried.

The next amendment you'll find at page 14. It's a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Section 111, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 111, as amended, is carried.

Section 112.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 112 is carried.

Section 113.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 113 is carried.

Section 114.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 114 is carried.

The next amendment is on page 15, a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Section 115, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 115, as amended, is carried.

The next amendment you'll find on page 16, a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

Section 116, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 116, as amended, is carried.

Section 117.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 117 is carried.

Section 118.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 118 is carried.

The next amendment is found on page 17. It's a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Section 119, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 119, as amended, is carried.

Sections 120 through 139.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Sections 120 through 139 are carried.

The next amendment you'll find on page 18. It's a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

The next amendment is on page 19, another government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Amendment 20, a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Amendment 21, a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Amendment 22, a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Section 140, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 140, as amended, is carried.

The next amendment is on page 23, a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Section 141, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 141, as amended, is carried.

Section 142.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 142 is carried.

The final amendment you'll find on page 24. It's a government motion.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: That amendment carries.

Section 143, as amended.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 143, as amended, is carried.

Section 144.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 144 is carried.

Section 145.

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Section 145 is carried.

Shall the title of the bill carry?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: The title of the bill is carried.

Shall Bill 147, as amended, carry?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: Bill 147, as amended, is carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House?

AYES

Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill, Munro.

NAYS

Agostino, Christopherson, Levac.

The Chair: I will report the bill, as amended, to the House.

Thank you to the committee members. I appreciate your co-operation through this process and look forward to third reading debate.

The committee stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.

The committee adjourned at 1706.