Labour Relations
Amendment Act (Construction Industry), 2000, Bill 69,
Mr Stockwell / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
relations de travail (industrie de la construction),
projet de loi 69, M. Stockwell
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
Chair /
Présidente
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale
PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke Centre / -Centre PC)
Ms Leslie Cooke, acting manager, BPS, Employment and labour
policy branch, Ministry of Labour
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Ms Laura Hopkins and Ms Elizabeth Baldwin, legislative
counsel
Ms Elaine Campbell and Mr Avrum Fenson, research officers,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1536 in room 151.
LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS
DE TRAVAIL (INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION)
Consideration of Bill 69, An
Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in relation to the
construction industry / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de
1995 sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait à
l'industrie de la construction.
The Chair (Ms Marilyn
Mushinski): We'll call the meeting to order. Today we
deal with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 69. Are there
any comments, questions or amendments, and if so, to which
sections?
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): Can I just have a
procedural question, Chair?
The Chair:
Yes.
Mr
Christopherson: Given that we, once again, as is the
norm with this government, have insufficient time to do the kind
of job that should be done, may I ask what the recommendation is
of the Chair in terms of how we proceed with the limited time
there is? There are a lot of different ways to approach this. I'm
wondering what you have in mind.
The Chair:
Obviously it depends on what the committee would like. My
understanding is there was an agreement that we would have five
days of public hearings, one day for clause-by-clause and that
clause-by-clause consideration would be given today. The usual
time for this committee is from 3:30 until 6. I'm assuming we
will try to deal expeditiously as possible with clause-by-clause
consideration for today.
Mr
Christopherson: I gather then the expectation of the
government is that at the end of the allotted time, all the
government amendments will be deemed to have been moved and Bob's
your uncle?
Hon Chris Stockwell
(Minister of Labour): I would expect that some time
around 5:30 or 20 to 6 the government motions, the NDP motions
and the Liberal motions would be deemed to be moved and then you
could vote on them as a block. If that's convenient for the
members, that will let you get on the record that you voted in
favour of your amendments.
The Chair:
However, I should remind the committee that it is not
time-allocated. Apparently, according to procedure, I cannot
allow any kind of motion that allocates time. I'm just suggesting
that the committee govern itself accordingly.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: OK.
Mr Rick Bartolucci
(Sudbury): We will be going in order as is customary
when we do clause-by-clause. However, there may be a few
amendments that both Mr Christopherson and I would like to have
dealt with independently before 5:30 or 20 to 6. At that time,
can we withdraw from the order that we're going through and
simply go to a motion to take out what we'd like dealt with
independently and voted on separately? Is that all right?
The Chair:
Yes. It would need unanimous consent.
Mr
Bartolucci: I think that's why we're asking now, so that
we can get that.
The Chair:
If the committee would agree to that-
Mr
Bartolucci: I think the minister is in agreement with
that.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: That's exactly as I thought it would work.
Around 5:30, or if we're not done and by unanimous consent, all
the Conservative motions will be put at once and voted up or
down, all the NDP motions will be voted on at once and voted up
or down, and then all the Liberal motions will be put and voted
up or down.
The Chair:
If there's unanimous consent for that.
Mr
Christopherson: Just as a block, though, Chris?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: It allows you to get on the record for all
your amendments-
Mr
Bartolucci: So we can go out of order in order to make
sure there are a few passed. You don't have a problem with
that?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: They can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far
as I know, by unanimous consent the committee can pretty much
order the business any way they like-unless the clerks give us a
different opinion, I don't know.
The clerks are offering
advice. The point is, you can reorder, but if you're not
finished, you're not finished. All I would like the committee to
be cognizant of is that I'd like the government amendments to be
put before 6 of the clock.
If we all have that understanding, we can work towards
accomplishing our goal.
Mr
Christopherson: Can I just take 60 seconds to confer
with a colleague?
The Chair:
Yes, certainly.
Mr Raminder Gill
(Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Madam Chair, if
there's a vote in the House at 5:50 or whatever, then I guess we
stop and attend to that?
The Chair:
Yes, we have to.
Mr Gill: OK,
thank you.
Mr
Bartolucci: We've decided, Madam Chair, if it's
agreeable with the government, that we'll just go in order and
towards the end of the time allotted there may be a few motions
that we would like to pull and have voted on independently,
either yes or no. Then at 5:30 or 5:40 we will vote en bloc.
The Chair:
Is that OK?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: That's OK.
The Chair:
Then we'll begin with section 1. Are there any motions?
Mr
Bartolucci: In order to try to save time, can I-
Hon Mr
Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Chair: The problem
is, and I say to the NDP and the Liberals as well, the clerks
inform us that you can't vote en bloc. If an amendment is going
to be voted on it has to be voted on individually.
Mr
Bartolucci: Having said that, why don't we just go
through these motions with yes or no?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: See how far we get.
The Chair:
Hold down what amendments you want held down.
Mr Gill: Yes
or no; no explanation. Let's move on.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: He wants to say just how many are going to be
before the committee. Let's find out what we have in front of us
before we start determining when we're going to break.
The Chair:
Each amendment has to be read into the record.
Mr
Christopherson: I was clear; now I can't say that I am
as clear.
Mr
Bartolucci: I think what's happened, what the minister
said is that we can't vote en bloc with amendments. They have to
be done individually. There are some repeat amendments here,
there's no question. If we wanted to spend three minutes getting
those out, who cares who puts them through as long as we put them
through, at least as long as we suggest it, or just withdraw
motions as we go.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Why don't we do that as the first order of
business, determine exactly what we have before us?
The Chair:
We'll begin with section 1.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: No amendments.
Mr
Christopherson: Are you going by the amendment package?
You're going through each section, aren't you?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Section by section.
The Chair:
Yes, we're going section by section.
Mr
Christopherson: All right.
The Chair:
The package of amendments should be in order of those sections,
Mr Christopherson.
Shall section 1 carry? All in
favour of section 1? Opposed? That carries.
Section 2: I believe we have
amendments.
Mr
Bartolucci: Do you want me to go ahead?
The Chair:
Yes, please.
Mr
Bartolucci: Do you want an explanation, or just vote on
it?
The Chair:
Do you want it held? Do you want to speak to it?
Mr
Bartolucci: No, vote on it.
The Chair:
It must be read into the record first. So read it and then we'll
decide if we're going to vote.
Mr
Bartolucci: I move that paragraph 1 of subsection 126(3)
of the act, as set aside in section 2 of the bill, be struck out
and the following substituted:
"1. The board may consider
any relationship by way of blood, marriage or adoption between an
individual having a direct or indirect involvement with one of
the entities and an individual having a direct or indirect
involvement with any of the other entities but such a
relationship shall not be the sole consideration."
The Chair:
Do you wish to speak to that?
Mr
Bartolucci: No, that's fine.
The Chair:
All those in favour? Opposed? That does not carry.
NDP motion number-
Mr
Christopherson: It's exactly the same amendment, Chair.
I would say we just count the same vote. The wording is exactly
the same.
The Chair:
No, it's not moved if it's exactly the same.
Mr
Christopherson: Just don't move it? OK.
The Chair:
Liberal motion.
Mr
Bartolucci: There is no reason to move this one because
it has been defeated in 126(3).
The Chair:
And the same with number 4?
Mr
Christopherson: Correct.
The Chair:
Shall section 2 carry? All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Mr
Christopherson: Chair, could I ask that from now on they
be recorded votes?
The Chair:
You want each vote recorded?
Mr
Christopherson: Please.
The Chair:
We can do that, Mr Christopherson.
Mr Ted Chudleigh
(Halton): If it's to be recorded, it has to be requested
before each vote, doesn't it?
The Chair:
Is has to be requested each time before the vote.
Mr
Christopherson: I'm not trying to go back. I'm just
saying from here on in if you could make them all recorded. If
you want me to say it every time, I can, but it seems silly.
Mr
Chudleigh: We tried to do that once when I was a
Chair.
The Chair:
So you want it for all of them?
Mr
Christopherson: Yes.
The Chair: Section 3, government
amendment 5.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsection 150.1(1) of the act, as set out in section 3
of the bill, be amended by adding the following paragraphs:
"5. The regional municipality
of Durham.
"6. The county of
Simcoe."
The Chair:
Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh, DeFaria,
Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That is carried.
Number 6.
Mr Gill: I
move that section 150.1 of the act, as set out in section 3 of
the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Notice to bargain
"(3.1) Despite subsection
59(1), a notice of desire to bargain may be given any time after
December 31, 2000 with respect to a collective agreement that is
deemed under this section to expire on April 30, 2001."
The Chair:
Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That is carried.
NDP motion number 7.
Mr
Christopherson: I move that subsections (2), (3) and (4)
of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck
out.
The Chair:
Recorded vote.
1550
AYES
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
NAYS
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
The Chair:
That does not carry.
Government motion number
8.
Mr Gill: I
move that section 150.2 of the act, as set out in section 3 of
the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Exception
"(6.1) Despite subsection
(6), notice under subsection (5) may be given any time after
April 30, 2001 if notice of desire to bargain has been given and
both parties agree that it may be done."
The Chair:
Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That is carried.
Government motion number
9.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsections 150.2(8) and (9) of the act, as set out in
section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following
substituted:
"If notice given
"(8) If notice is given
under subsection (5),
"(a) the parties may
jointly appoint an arbitrator or either party may request the
minister in writing to appoint an arbitrator;
"(b) if subsection (6.1)
applies, the minister shall not appoint a conciliation officer, a
conciliation board or a mediator;
"(c) if subsection (6.1)
applies and a conciliation officer, a conciliation board or a
mediator has been appointed, that appointment shall be deemed to
be terminated; and
"(d) subject to subsection
(8.1), all terms and conditions of employment and all rights,
privileges and duties that existed under the collective agreement
that expired on April 30, 2001 shall apply with respect to the
employer, the trade union and the employees, as the case may be,
during the period beginning on the day on which notice was given
and ending on the day,
"(i) a new collective
agreement is made or the collective agreement that expired is
renewed, or
"(ii) the right of the
trade union to represent the employees is terminated.
"Exception
"(8.1) The employer and the
trade union may agree to alter a term or condition of employment
or a right, privilege or duty referred to in clause (8)(b).
"Minister to appoint
arbitrator
"(9) Upon receiving a
request under clause (8)(a), the minister shall appoint an
arbitrator."
The Chair:
Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Government motion number
10.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsection 150.2(15) of the act, as set out in section
3 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clause:
"(b.1) prescribing the
powers of an arbitrator;"
The Chair: Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Government motion number
11.
Mr Gill: I
move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the
following section to the act:
"Director to convene
meeting
"150.3 (1) At least twice
in each year beginning in 2001, the director of labour management
services shall convene a meeting of representatives of employers
or employers' organizations and of trade unions or councils of
trade unions to discuss matters of interest relating to
collective bargaining and labour relations in the residential
sector of the construction industry.
"Selection
"(2) The representatives
invited to attend the meeting shall be selected by the director
of labour management services in his or her sole discretion."
The Chair:
Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 3, as
amended, carry? Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
Section 4, government motion number 13.
Mr Gill:
Section 4 of the bill, subsections 151(1) of the act.
Mr
Bartolucci: I think there's one before that.
Mr
Christopherson: Page 12.
Mr
Bartolucci: Page 12 is a Liberal motion.
The Chair:
I am advised that this is not a motion; it's advice: "The Liberal
Party recommends voting against section 4 of the bill."
Mr
Bartolucci: It's a motion to be moved in committee.
The Chair:
It's advice as opposed to it being a motion.
Mr
Christopherson: On a point of order, Chair: The leg
counsel-I can have my staff person come down here-apparently
advised this is the way to word it. I guess there was even some
question on the part of our staff. To end up having that advice
result in not even an opportunity to vote seems to be somewhat of
a miscarriage.
The Chair:
I am ruling that this is not a motion, advising the Liberal Party
to vote against section 4. The vote will come when I read out
that section for the vote. I am saying that this is not a
motion.
Mr
Bartolucci: Then there must be some miscommunication
between the staff here and the legislative clerk's staff because
there are a lot of these. This is exactly the way they told us to
word them, and they would be deemed as motions because they're
motions to be moved.
The Chair:
Again, it's not a motion; it's advice. The advice is, "The
Liberal Party recommends voting against section 4 of the bill."
You will have the opportunity to exercise that when you come to
vote for section 4.
Mr Marcel Beaubien
(Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I've got a question. I have a
package in front of me submitted by the clerk's office, and it
says, "Enclosed please find all the amendments received by my
office by the committee's agreed-to deadline of 4 pm May 26," and
it says "amendment p 12." I take it as an amendment, whether I'm
in favour of or opposed to it. I would take it that this is an
amendment that has been submitted by the clerk's office that we
have to vote on. If not, why not?
The Chair:
Because we're not considering it a motion; we're considering that
it is advice.
Mr
Christopherson: Could leg counsel perhaps provide a
little clarification, Chair?
The Chair:
Yes, certainly.
Ms Laura
Hopkins: The heading on the document that says "Motion
to be moved in committee." I think that is misleading. When we
are helping members prepare their motions, if a member tells us
that what they want is to get a section right out of a bill, we
recommend including this piece of paper to flag the member's
intention to vote against the section, which is the procedurally
correct way to go. The piece of paper is just to call the
attention of the members to the fact that one of the members
proposes to vote against the section. It's not a motion, and
unfortunately the heading makes it look like it is. It's included
in the motions package in order to convey the intention of the
party which plans to vote against the section.
Mr
Christopherson: That's helpful. Chair, if I might-and I
appreciate Mr Beaubien offering up his question about this
too-can we have unanimous agreement to at least have the
statement read, even if we can't vote on it, just so that it's in
the record? I have some of these too. Obviously as opposition we
cared enough about it to at least make the point, and having it
on paper doesn't do anything beyond the life of the paper. If we
could at least have the
statement read, Madam Chair, that would be somewhat helpful, I
believe.
1600
The Chair:
OK.
Mr
Christopherson: Just within Hansard.
The Chair:
When I put the question, I will read into the record.
Mr
Christopherson: Fine.
Mr
Bartolucci: It might be a lot easier if we do it now,
Madam Chair, because this is going to get a lot more complicated.
If you check your package-and I'm trying to make it easier-there
are an awful lot of recommendations that we thought were motions,
and when you start getting into subsections it's going to be very
difficult for you to read back all of them. You do what you want,
but I say that it may be almost impossible for you to be doing
that at the end.
The Chair:
All right. Committee, do you want unanimous consent to read this
into the record right now? Is there unanimous consent? Do you
want a recorded vote, Mr Christopherson?
Mr
Christopherson: Sure.
The Chair:
I guess you don't vote on a unanimous consent, do you?
Mr
Christopherson: Unanimous consent would have it read.
Ideally we'd like to have a vote.
The Chair:
So is committee in agreement to have this read into the
record?
Section 4 of the bill: "The
Liberal Party recommends voting against section 4 of the
bill."
Now we'll go to government
motion 13.
Mr Gill: I
move that the definition of "designated regional employers'
organization" in subsection 151(1) of the act, as set out in
section 4 of the bill, be amended by striking out "regulations"
at the end and substituting "Minister."
The Chair:
Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Government motion 14.
Mr Gill: I
move that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding the
following subsection:
"(2) Section 151 of the act
is amended by adding the following subsections:
"Designation of regional
employers' organizations
"(3) The minister may, upon
the terms and conditions the minister considers appropriate,
designate regional employers' organizations.
"Non-application
"(4) The Regulations Act
does not apply to a designation made under subsection (3)."
The Chair:
Members of committee, my apologies. I should have been saying
before each motion, "Is there any debate?"
Mr
Chudleigh: I kind of like the way it's going.
The Chair:
Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: If I might, Madam Chair, just on the
point you made: I at least want to state and get it on the record
that this really is just a sham. There's no real debate. There's
no time for analysis. If you take the time on each of these to
give it what it deserves right now, we're going to get through
three or four amendments, quite frankly, to do this job properly
on behalf of the people of Ontario. All we're doing now is going
through the legal motions of voting, but there's no meaning to
it, because there is no debate. We're not asking the government
for rationale on any of these because, if we do, important ones
later on don't get discussed. Since there's not enough time, I
just want to point out that this is really a joke and a sham and
a farce, and it's so far removed from the traditional
parliamentary process of actually having a little bit of
intelligent discussion around some of the amendments and their
implications that I feel compelled to at least put on the record
my strong opposition to ramming these through in such a short
period of time.
Mr Gill:
Madam Chair, we had five days of public hearings, and a lot of
people took an active part in that, and from that we have certain
amendments, and as the process says, we are bringing them
forward, all parties are, and we're voting on them. I think it's
a fair process. Certainly the member opposite has his views.
Mr
Bartolucci: Just one comment, because we're wasting very
valuable time, but the reality with this is that we're not
allowing the people who made submissions the opportunity for a
fair hearing about what they said, because I know, you know and
everybody here knows exactly what motions are going to get passed
and what motions aren't going to get passed. If only we had a
little bit of opportunity to debate why we think something should
be passed or should not be passed. The reality is that if we do
that, as Mr Christopherson said-he makes a good point. It's
something we should learn for the future. Today it's too late,
we've agreed, so we're going to go through it. But we're not
debating, and therefore we're missing a valuable opportunity to
make this bill, which we consider on the opposition side to be
flawed, a little bit better, and so that may be more palatable
for some of you people on the government side to be supporting
it. However, having said that, let's move on because the die is
cast.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Bartolucci.
Shall section 4, as amended, carry? A recorded
vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
The next item is a piece of
paper that I will read into the record as advice rather than a
motion.
Section 5 of the bill:
"The Liberal Party
recommends voting against section 5 of the bill."
I have another piece of
paper too that I will read into the record.
Section 5 of the bill,
section 160.1 of the act:
"The NDP recommends voting
against section 5 of the bill."
We have government motion
17, section 5.
Mr Gill: I
move that section 160.1 of the act, as set out in section 5 of
the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Agreement to abandon
bargaining rights
"160.1(1) If a majority of
employee bargaining agencies that hold bargaining rights with
respect to an employer have filed with the minister a written
agreement to abandon the bargaining rights held by them and their
affiliated bargaining agents with respect to that employer in an
area comprising all of Ontario or specified parts of Ontario, the
Lieutenant Governor in Council may make a regulation deeming the
bargaining rights held by all employee bargaining agencies and
their affiliated bargaining agents with respect to that employer
in that area to have been abandoned.
"Majority of class
"(2) If a majority of
employee bargaining agencies whose affiliated bargaining agents
represent employees in the trades other than the civil trades
file with the minister a written agreement to abandon bargaining
rights with respect to an employer in an area comprising all of
Ontario or specified parts of Ontario, the Lieutenant Governor in
Council may make a regulation deeming the bargaining rights held
by all such employee bargaining agencies and their affiliated
bargaining agents with respect to that employer in that area to
have been abandoned.
"Effect
"(3) On the effective date
of a regulation under subsection (1) or (2),
"(a) all the affiliated
bargaining agents to which the regulation applies cease to
represent the employees of the employer in the area to which the
regulation applies;
"(b) the bargaining rights
vested under section 156 in all the employee bargaining agencies
to which the regulation applies shall not be exercised for any
purpose relating to the employer in the area to which the
regulation applies; and
"(c) all provincial
agreements in effect to which the employee bargaining agencies to
which the regulation applies were party that bound the employer
cease to bind the employer in the area to which the regulation
applies.
"Other means of
abandonment
"(4) Nothing in this
section precludes a finding of abandonment of bargaining rights
otherwise than as a result of an agreement or a regulation.
"Subsection 167(1) not
breached
"(5) An employee bargaining
agency that makes or files an agreement under this section shall
not be found to be in breach of subsection 167(1) for having done
so, whether the agreement applies with respect to the whole of
the province or only a part or parts of it.
1610
"Where section 147 not
breached
"(6) A parent trade union
as defined in section 145 that is a member of an employee
bargaining agency that makes or files an agreement under this
section shall not be found to be in breach of section 147 because
the employee bargaining agency made or filed the agreement or
because the parent trade union influenced or caused the employee
bargaining agency to do so.
"Where ss 149 not
breached
"(7) A council of trade
unions that is a member of an employee bargaining agency that
makes or files an agreement under this section shall not be bound
to be in breach of section 149 because the employee bargaining
agency made or filed the agreement or because the council of
trade unions influenced or caused the employee bargaining agency
to do so.
"Same
"(8) A parent trade union
as defined in section 145 that is a member of an employee
bargaining agency that makes or files an agreement under this
section shall not be found to be in breach of section 149 because
the employee bargaining agency made or filed the agreement or
because the parent trade union influenced or caused the employee
bargaining agency to do so.
"No rescission
"(9) An agreement that has
been filed with the minister under this section cannot be
rescinded without the permission of the minister
"Agreements made or filed
before section in force
"(10) An agreement
described in this section that was made or filed before the day
section 5 of the Labour Relations Amendment Act (Construction
Industry), 2000 comes into force is not invalid because it was
made or filed before that day.
"Meaning of `civil
trades'
"(11) In this section,
"`civil trades' means
carpenters, labourers, operating engineers, operative plasterers,
and rodmen."
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Gill. We just need two points to be clarified. On
page 2, sixth paragraph, second line, ending in the word "found,"
you said "bound" or were heard to say "bound." Is it "bound" or
"found"?
Mr Gill: That should read in the
record as "found." I may have made a mistake. It's a long
amendment.
The Chair:
Likewise, in the next paragraph, line 2, about two thirds of the
way along, the word "found": We again heard the word "bound."
Mr Gill:
It should be "found," if we may correct the record, please.
The Chair:
The record will be corrected.
Question, Mr
Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: I ask the parliamentary assistant to
explain to us the difference between the amendment and what we
have, just a short explanation in non-legalese as to exactly what
we are doing here that's not already spelled out in 160.1.
Mr Gill:
In 160.1, the provision allowing parties to agree to abandon
bargaining rights is removed and replaced by regulation-making
power. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make a regulation
deeming that abandonment of bargaining rights has occurred if a
majority group of affected provincial unions agrees. This group
may include all construction unions with bargaining rights for a
particular employer or just those representing the non-civil
trades. The regulation may apply to all or part of the
province.
Mr
Christopherson: Now would you please just take a moment
and move away from the page and explain that in everyday kind of
language. Just say it for me.
Mr Gill:
In the bill before it was voluntary and now it is by regulation.
So it's not voluntary any more.
Mr
Christopherson: Do I understand what you're saying is
that the government now, by a regulation, will arbitrarily and
unilaterally remove the bargaining agent from workers, period?
You're going to pass a law that takes away their union?
Mr Gill:
Yes, if a majority of them will abandon the rights, then it will
be deemed to be-
Mr
Christopherson: Sorry, when you say "a majority of
them," do you mean the individual members will vote and that's
where you get the majority?
Mr Gill:
Individual members of the bargaining agency will vote. Yes.
Mr
Christopherson: Who holds the vote? The union or the
government? And what kind of vote? What's the procedure? How much
notice?
Mr Gill:
It would be up to the unions to deal with that. They will find a
method of voting.
Mr
Christopherson: If I understand correctly, the original
language in the bill that was passed at second reading was
already for a voluntary abandonment, and I assume that no union
would do such a thing without talking to their members and having
their members agree this would happen. If that same sort of vote
is going to take place, why the necessity to have a regulation
which effectively gives the minister, with the support of his or
her cabinet colleagues, the unilateral right to remove a union
representative from these workers? I don't quite understand why
you've taken this next step.
Mr Gill:
Basically, if the majority of the organizations agree, then they
speak for the whole organization.
Mr
Christopherson: That's not my question; I understand
that part. But if there's a vote on the part of the individual
members anyway-I'm assuming there would have been in the first
instance. There is in the second instance because you've already
said so, meaning the original versus the amendment. The original
language already provided that the union then could follow on
that action and they wouldn't be bound by their responsibilities
under the Ontario Labour Relations Act in terms of duty to
represent. I don't understand why now you felt the need, based on
what we heard during the hearings, to move to a regulation. I'm
just trying to understand why we went that way. So far, you're
giving me the arguments for the rationale of why the clause was
in the original bill. I haven't yet heard the rationale of why
you've moved an amendment that changes it so that now a
regulation is part of the process.
Mr Gill: I
think it's only fair, Mr Christopherson, that we're moving to
majority rule, and if the majority rules that way, then it's fair
to bring in that-
Mr
Christopherson: I'm sorry. I'm sure it's because I'm not
being clear as opposed to you dodging the answer. I'm assuming in
both instances there would be a majority vote by the members.
It's not spelled out in the first one. I'm assuming that would
happen. It is spelled out in the second one. What I don't
understand is why we've now moved to a regulation. That wasn't in
the first bill, I don't believe. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Now all of a sudden we're moving to a regulation. I'm asking why
that is, and I'll tell you why so you understand why I'm asking
these questions. I find it frightening that we're giving the
minister, under any condition in Ontario, the power to pass a
regulation that removes somebody's right to join a union.
Mr Gill:
Since Mr Christopherson is very concerned about that, can we stop
for a couple of minutes and try and get a clear answer for him,
please?
The Chair:
Does the committee want to take a recess for five minutes?
OK.
The committee recessed
from 1619 to 1626.
Mr Gill: I
think it's fair, if the member doesn't remind, to repeat that
question, please, and I'll try and answer that, Mr
Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: The original question was just to
explain the difference. So far, we've identified one main
difference. If there are others, I would ask you to point those
out. But the point we're on right now is, why the necessity to
move to a regulatory involvement in the amendment that's in front
of us?
Mr Gill:
Previously it was all voluntary. I tried to explain that. Now we
want to make sure that if a majority of the unions agree, then
it'll be deemed that everybody agrees. That's why we want to
bring it in. We are not leaving it for 100% of the people to come
on board.
Mr
Christopherson: Sorry?
Mr Gill:
We're saying if a majority of the unions agree, then we'll
consider that as everybody agreeing.
Mr
Christopherson: We sort of tug at this thing and it
unravels further and further. Earlier I asked you if individual members of these
unions were going to get votes. Are you still standing by
that?
Mr Gill:
What I'm saying is-
Mr
Christopherson: Answer my question, please.
Mr Gill: I
am. I'm trying to answer it, if you will listen, please.
It is up to the union how
they want to gauge the response of their members. We're not going
to dictate that. I'm assuming that the unions will go to their
members, if they're going to be abandoning the bargaining rights.
If they don't want to do that and they want to take it upon
themselves, then it's up to them.
Mr
Christopherson: Are you saying that a majority of
the-what? Is there like one vote per union and then it's a
majority vote? If the carpenters and labourers agreed, but the
operating engineers disagreed, the majority would carry, and
those unions that don't want to give up their rights, whether
they've had a membership vote or not, you're going to, by law,
take away their union?
Mr Gill:
The majority in every situation will carry. So if it's 50% plus
one that agree to abandoning it, then we'll deem it that
everybody has agreed, and that is "the majority rules."
Mr
Christopherson: If I understand correctly, you're
talking about one vote per union and there are-help me out,
Pat.
Interruption.
Mr
Christopherson: Seven. So there are two more-there's
probably an amendment needed here to correct-the civil
trades.
Interruption.
Mr
Christopherson: Six? All right.
The Chair:
OK. Could we keep the discussion in committee, please?
Mr
Christopherson: I'm just trying to get to the point
where if you've got four of these unions agreeing, but two of
them don't-stand-alone, complete, autonomous unions in their own
right and they don't want to give up their bargaining rights for
those workers-the other unions will make that decision and you
will give it effect in force of law through a regulation. Do I
understand that correctly?
Mr Gill:
Yes, that is correct; that's very correct.
Mr
Christopherson: You've got to be kidding me.
Mr Gill:
No, I'm not kidding you.
Mr
Christopherson: This is outrageous. You're going to take
away the rights, the union rights of members if they decide to
hold a vote. I don't want to pick out a trade, because it may
create a problem. But let's just say union A holds a vote of its
members, and the members vote by majority to retain the union. If
the other unions-B, C, D, E and F-vote as a single entity to drop
the bargaining rights, or to abandon them, to use your word, then
union A and union A members and union A members' democratic vote
has no effect, is null and void, is tossed out the window, and
somebody else not even in their union makes this decision. Is
that correct? You're going to enforce that by law?
Mr Gill:
If a majority of unions agree to it, which is 50% plus one, any
of the members who may have voted against that, yes, they will
also be part of that total agreement, even though some of them
might have voted against it.
Mr
Christopherson: Just a minute now. There's a difference
between majority rule-we've got to be clear about what we're
talking about. We are talking about autonomous unions that stand
alone, that exist in law on their own. They are completely
stand-alone unions. They make their own decisions, they have
their own constitution, they have their own collective agreement.
If they voted 100%, for the sake of argument, not to have their
rights abandoned by their union, a vote by the other unions takes
precedence and they lose their bargaining rights regardless, and
you're going to enforce that by law? That's what you're telling
me?
Mr Gill:
Majority rules will carry. In the overall scheme of things, if
more unions, 50% plus one, are for it, yes, it will carry whether
some of the members may have voted differently in their own
unions.
Mr
Christopherson: I understand majority rule. What I'm
having a great deal of difficulty with are two things: number
one, that a minister, under any condition, is being given the
power by regulation to dissolve, disband, a union, especially in
the hands of this government, I might say. But just as a general
way of developing labour laws in this province, I find that
terrifying; secondly, the notion of majority by someone not even
in their union, not even in their trade, deciding whether or not
I, if I'm in union A, get to keep my union, and if all my
colleagues voted in favour of keeping the union, that doesn't
matter to you-somebody else in some other union has decided that
my union rights are going to be abandoned. You're going to give
effect and force to that by law. That's outrageous. It's
preposterous.
Further to that, you're
taking care of the general contractors, but what about the
subcontractors? They came forward and were pleading to be treated
fairly and equally here. I'm not suggesting I'm in agreement with
anybody losing their rights here; however, I am asking the
question on behalf of the subcontractors, who made a pitch, and
I'm asking you if they're going to be untouched by this. Will
they still be involved with the unions? The point is, will they
be bound by the provincial agreements?
Mr Gill:
Madam Chair, are we able to defer till the end to come back to
this matter? Perhaps we'll get staff to pitch in.
The Chair:
If you wanted it held down to the end we would need unanimous
consent to do that.
Mr
Christopherson: No. Are you kidding? This is more
draconian than I ever expected even Harris would come down
with.
Mr
Bartolucci: Madam Chair, I believe it's important that
we deal with it now because there is a sequence that is attached
to anything that happens after this. So I think it's very
important that it be dealt with now.
Mr Gill: If I may reiterate the
answer I gave before, the union members may or may not agree
within one union. We are giving all the unions together the
right, if there's a majority of unions-and hopefully all the
workers' rights are equally represented in that sense. Every
union is for the workers, and therefore if the majority of unions
make a decision to abandon their rights, then we are saying, yes,
by regulation we'll agree to the majority rule and we'll carry it
through.
Mr
Christopherson: You tell me where you think I'm wrong in
this analogy. If we take steelworkers, autoworkers and OPSEU-just
to make it easy, three-this is no different than OPSEU and the
steelworkers deciding they're going to abandon rights and the
autoworkers not having a choice because they're outvoted, no
matter what their members say.
Mr Gill:
That is correct.
Mr
Christopherson: Tell me how this is democracy. They're a
stand-alone union. They're not in the same union. How can some
union vote for another union? How the hell can that be?
Mr Gill:
Each union is for the workers' rights, and if a majority of
unions are agreeing to it, then we deem that everybody is
considered to be agreeing to it. I think that's how democracy is;
that's how we are all elected.
Mr
Christopherson: I was elected by the people of Hamilton
West. The people on the Mountain had no say, except those who are
in Hamilton West. What you're saying is, if there was a majority
vote that voted against me but the people of Hamilton West voted
for me, I don't get to take my seat in the House. That's
outrageous.
Mr Gill:
Because you didn't have enough members, you didn't form the
government.
Mr
Christopherson: That's not the point here at all.
Mr Gill:
That is exactly why-
Mr
Christopherson: That is not the point. You know what?
That's no different than saying that the other provinces can
decide on their own what happens to Ontario. They are autonomous
unions. That is the point here. They are completely separate
unions. They have no relationship except they're in the same
business, but they run their own. They have their own
constitution. How can you pass a law that says someone else
decides whether you get to keep your union or not?
The Chair:
Members of committee, I think this is degenerating a bit into a
two-way debate and I would appreciate it, so that we can get this
back into committee, if you would direct your comments through
the Chair.
Mr
Christopherson: I would be pleased to defer and give my
colleague Mr Bartolucci an opportunity. I'm sure he's just as
impressed.
The Chair:
Mr Bartolucci does have a question.
Mr
Bartolucci: I've got a couple of concerns. One, we were
going to allow for voluntary abandonment of rights and now we're
going to regulate the abandonment of rights. To me that changes
the whole intent of this section and this bill, and I'm wondering
if this isn't a substantive motion which would be deemed out of
order as an amendment. I think we need legal advice, because I
see this as changing the entire direction of this bill and I
don't know that an amendment is supposed to be able to do that. I
thought an amendment was supposed to alter the bill, not change
the course of the bill. That in fact does change the entire
course of this bill, and that's why I ask that we debate this
now.
The Chair:
I am advised that the motion is within the scope of the bill.
It's in order.
Mr
Bartolucci: This legislation now is rewriting what we
deemed as civil trades, then. In the past the bricklayers have
been included in the civil trades. They are no longer included in
the civil trades. Is that correct, Mr Gill?
Mr Gill:
Exactly what I said to the member previously. This bill only
brings the democratic process forward. If a majority of the
unions agree, only then, so it's not a substantial change from
the original. It's not.
Mr
Bartolucci: I think we're missing the point here. I
don't want to get embroiled in a conversation, because we'll
obviously disagree. This is a substantive change in the direction
of the bill. There isn't a tradesperson in the world who will not
consider this to be very substantive.
I want to go to the
definition of "civil trades," because you are rewriting the
definition of civil trades here. You have not included the
bricklayers; you have not included the cement masons. To me,
you're not only changing the bill in a substantive way, but
you're changing the definition of civil trades in a substantive
way, which will only create-I might tell you, Mr Gill,
honestly-complete confusion in the industry. I would seriously
suggest that you withdraw this amendment.
Mr Gill:
If there is any clarification or amendment that Mr Bartolucci
wants to put through, we may want to consider that, or the
committee might want to consider that. If we have missed any of
the civil trades, perhaps when the time comes-
Mr
Christopherson: I don't think we can amend your
amendment.
Mr Gill:
No, we're not amending my amendment, but I'm saying if you wanted
to put forward later on-
Mr
Christopherson: We can't amend an amendment.
The Chair:
Any amendment to an amendment would have to be done by unanimous
consent.
Mr Gill:
I'm willing to put forward on page 3, the very last line, the
addition of a couple of subtrades, as Mr Bartolucci has
suggested.
Mr
Christopherson: They will be thrilled to hear they've
been tucked into this too.
Mr Gill: I
will be happy to accommodate that, if you will allow me to read
that into the amendment.
The Chair:
Again, it would be an amendment, Mr Gill, that I would need
unanimous consent from committee on.
Mr Gill:
To include a couple more unions or subtrades, I'm sure they'll
agree.
Mr
Beaubien: Madam Chair, I think some questions have been
placed on the floor here. I think we said we were going to take a
recess or get a staff person maybe to give us a thorough explanation of this
amendment. Am I correct?
Mr Gill:
What we requested was that maybe we can defer this particular one
towards the end.
Mr
Beaubien: We did not get unanimous consent on that.
The Chair:
No, you need unanimous consent.
Mr
Beaubien: Consequently, we have to deal with this. I
would strongly suggest that we have somebody who took part in
writing this-because now if we're going to introduce what a civil
trade is and we're willing to make a couple of more additions, I
may want to put a couple of more additions. I think we need to
have this explained to us in a fairly concise manner.
The Chair:
Mr Gill, would you be able to bring someone?
Mr Gill: I
will ask for the policy people to perhaps join me in a couple of
minutes. If you'll allow me, and if we have unanimous consent, I
can perhaps offer to add in a couple of subtrades.
The Chair:
We could hear from leg counsel.
Mr
Christopherson: Chair, if the parliamentary assistant is
asking for a short recess to allow him to bring in the resources
we need to properly deal with this, I'm not going to stand in the
way of that.
The Chair:
Why don't we stand this down for five minutes.
Mr
Chudleigh: Does leg counsel have something to add to
that?
The Chair:
Apparently not. I was receiving three kinds of advice in both my
right ear and my left ear at the time. I think we should take a
five-minute recess to clear the ears.
The committee recessed
from 1642 to 1654.
Mr Gill:
Madam Chair, a couple of items. I need unanimous consent to add a
couple of subtrades to the amendment, if I may, if I have
unanimous consent. Then we're going to come back to the
question.
Mr
Bartolucci: Could we do that at the very end? Let's get
these clarifications, which may make that a lot easier for all of
us to do. Let's clarify the questions we have first with regard
to the new 160.1.
The Chair:
Mr Gill, what you can do is withdraw your amendment and move a
new amendment, with unanimous consent.
Mr Gill:
Before I do that, this is such a small, technical last line out
of the three-page amendment-again, I know there are
technicalities we have to meet, but nonetheless, I think if we
have unanimous agreement-
Mr
Christopherson: You know what? Let me be very blunt with
you. The fact is that you've changed the rules around here so
much that we have so little say and so little opportunity to
express an opinion that-you need unanimous consent and likely you
will get it-first of all we're going to make sure that we start
getting some answers about this particular clause.
We will get to it. I think
I speak for my friend Mr Bartolucci when I say we will be sure
there's adequate time to deal with that amendment, and unanimous
consent may indeed be there, but before we give you what you
want, we want more answers about the implications of what's being
done and why. For one, I still haven't heard why you need to go
to a regulation to enforce this when your original proposal upset
some of us enough as it was, that there would even be a clause
talking about abandoning union rights, but at least it was
voluntary.
The Chair:
Members of committee, I would remind you, please, so that we
don't get into unfettered two-way debate, could you please
address your comments through the Chair.
Mr
Christopherson: Sure, through you.
The Chair:
I am the Chair of this committee.
Mr
Christopherson: Yes, through you, Chair. I wasn't being
facetious. I understand your point.
Through you to the
parliamentary assistant: We had enough trouble with the fact that
it was voluntary. Now you've decided it's necessary to use a
regulation, which is tantamount to law, and you would have the
ability, as a government, to enforce that law. I would still like
to hear a rationale about why you think it's necessary to go from
voluntary, which upset some of us enough, to a regulatory method
that has the full force and effect of law. I still haven't heard
an answer to that.
Mr Gill:
If I may try and explain-and I do have the privilege of having
staff members here from the policy branch. They may want to
reinforce that. Let me try and answer that and, if that's not
satisfactory, then we'll ask for an explanation. After that, I
don't know what more I can do, to be honest with you. Let me try
it one more time.
Yes, we're giving the
unions the democratic right to decide, by majority rule, if they
want to abandon their bargaining rights. I'm saying the same
thing again. I would now like to ask the assistant, Leslie, from
the policy branch if there's anything she can add. Then perhaps
we'll look at the rest of it.
Ms Leslie
Cooke: The first question was about the change from the
voluntary structure to the regulation structure.
The Chair:
Excuse me, would you identify yourself for the committee,
please.
Ms Cooke:
My name is Leslie Cooke. I'm a manager with the employment and
labour policy branch of the Ministry of Labour.
The structural change that
you see serves the policy goal of consistent treatment of
employers on this issue, in other words, not having abandonment
of bargaining rights by some unions for a particular employer and
not others. In the first reading version of the bill, the
structure didn't allow that or it certainly didn't ensure that
for employers. So the shift was to serve, generally speaking,
that policy goal.
If there are any technical
questions about the amendment, I'd be happy to answer them as
well. I know there were some issues about the committee
understanding fully what the impact of the amendment was. So I'd
be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mr Bartolucci: Thanks very much
for the clarification. Just so the committee knows, you are now
suggesting that a bargaining agent, a business agent, can decide
whether his workers will lose their bargaining rights? A majority
of business agents can decide that? Am I clear here? Because
we're getting two answers to that.
Mr Gill:
You are correct, Mr Bartolucci. The agent could, if he or she
wanted to, go back to the union and see if the members agreed or
not, or he or she may have that right given to them in their
capacity to be that-I'm trying to find the right word-business
manager. They may have been given that right to negotiate on
their behalf and then they might exercise that right.
1700
Mr
Bartolucci: I don't know if it's a technical question or
not but it's a very important question: How is the individual
tradesperson protected in all of this? In any given
jurisdiction-it doesn't make any difference where-where are the
protections built in for the worker here in the amendment to
160.1? During the break I tried to see where it is, because now
from a voluntary you're going to a mandatory abdication of your
bargaining rights. Where is the protection for the working
person?
Mr Gill:
This is only in case they choose to abandon that. If they don't
choose to abandon that, again, the majority rule will come
through. They're only abandoning if the majority agrees, whether
they go back to individual members, whether they decide as
business managers or whether the heads of the unions decide. I'm
going back to the fact that those union heads or business
managers I'm sure have workers' betterment in their minds. If
they all agree as a majority, then I think they're abandoning the
rights.
Mr
Bartolucci: Again, I go back to the original. You gave
me the answer to this already, but honestly, to me, this changes
the whole complexion of the entire bill. Do you have legal
opinion that this is an acceptable amendment?
The Chair:
You can be assured that I have received very good, strong legal
advice from legislative counsel that this motion is in order-I
beg your pardon, procedural advice, not legal.
Mr
Bartolucci: Procedural advice. What about legal?
The Chair:
The role of the Chair and of course the clerk in giving advice is
to provide procedural rulings, not legal rulings.
Mr
Bartolucci: There's the dilemma, Madam Chair. I don't
want to play games. We don't have enough time to play games and
I'm not. I'm having trouble coming to grips with this being an
amendment to a voluntary abdication of your rights when now it's
going to be mandatory. I understand where you're coming from as
the Chair. I just wanted to get that on the record.
Mr Gill:
Madam Chair, if I may clarify the point slightly: This is
voluntary in a sense that the unions have the right as a majority
to agree with it or disagree with it, so I think that's where the
volunteerism comes in. They can volunteer to agree with it or
they can volunteer not to agree with it, as a union.
Mr
Christopherson: Madam Chair?
The Chair:
Mr Beaubien.
Mr
Beaubien: In order that I can proceed along fairly
clearly, I would like to get clarification. I think I heard now
that the bargaining agent or the business manager, in his or her
decision, can represent or vote on behalf of all his or her
employees. Is that correct?
Mr Gill:
Yes, that is correct, Mr Beaubien. He has been given the right to
represent those workers, and he has an option of either going
back to the membership to see if the majority agrees, or he can
choose to exercise his right to vote along with the other unions
in a favourable or a negative way. He is accountable to his
membership, whether he chooses to go back to them each time or
whether he doesn't choose to go back to them each time.
Mr
Beaubien: I would hope that he or she would go back to
the membership, but I personally have some difficulty by not
clarifying this particular point. I think the business agent
should go back to the membership. I don't think the business
agent should make that decision. I may sound like opposition here
right now, but I have some difficulties in leaving that
responsibility delegated to the business manager or the business
agent.
Mr Gill:
Mr Beaubien, I think your point is very well taken. I think the
business manager should have the right to go back to the workers
or decide. If you agree, then perhaps he will be going back, but
it's their choice. I think you have a good point. I'm not
opposing that.
The Chair:
Minister Stockwell would like to comment.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Just to add to the point Mr Beaubien was
making, it would seem to me that they are, in a lot of ways,
politicians like ourselves and that upon making those decisions
it would be incumbent upon them to canvass their membership, as
any good politician would, like you would canvass your
constituency.
I'm not sure how we could
write legislation that would compel a union executive to converse
or discuss the issue with his membership. We can only presume
that to be the case. If he chooses not to, there is nothing we
can do that can compel him to do that. In essence, by passing the
legislation or amendment the way it is, the argument is moot in
my opinion, simply because it's up to the business agent of that
trade or affiliate to canvass his membership any way he sees fit.
I'm not about to tell them, by legislation, how it is they are
supposed to go about doing that.
Mr
Christopherson: That's an interesting point of view,
Minister, given that previous labour legislation you've rammed
down has been predicated on the fact that you were going to force
and ensure that votes were taken, and you didn't care what the
leadership of that union thought. Not you personally, but your
government didn't care what the leadership said. Your government
can't have it both ways.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Give me an example.
Mr
Christopherson: For strikes, did you not, in Bill 7? It
was up to the unions to decide before and you've now put
legislation in-most of them did anyway, but my point was that the arguments at the time
were that they had to go to their members to do it, and there
were probably a couple of exceptions that didn't.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: For a strike vote?
Mr
Chudleigh: They had a secret ballot.
Mr
Christopherson: Yes, a secret ballot, and also for
automatic certification. That was denied, and you said the
argument the Minister of Labour at the time gave was that members
have a right to make this decision. We defended the fact that
automatic certification ought to be there, but your government
removed that based on the argument that there should be a vote
each and every time. Why? Because you said at the time, your
rhetoric was, that every member deserved a vote. So I have a
great deal of difficulty understanding which position the
government has. Do the individual members have a right in every
instance to have a say, or it is the leaders under the
constitution of their union who will say-
Hon Mr
Stockwell: But-
Mr
Christopherson: Let me finish, Minister, if I might. I
have a great deal of difficulty believing that this isn't just a
convenient rationale that you suddenly want to use, that is not
consistent at all with the philosophy you've applied to labour
decisions as they relate to members.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: My response would be that if you're talking
about a strike vote or certification of a contract, I would think
it would be incumbent upon any good government to determine that
that should be a decision-
Mr
Christopherson: Oh, but it's OK to have-
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Hold it.
Mr
Christopherson: Just a minute. It's OK to have their
whole union abandoned?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Can I finish my answer?
Mr
Christopherson: Since you cut in on me anyway, you might
as well finish your answer.
The Chair:
This is what I mean. It tends to be degenerating again-
Mr
Christopherson: Through you, Chair.
The Chair:
Please, would you allow the minister to conclude his
response.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: What I'm saying is that there is some
fundamental rationale here. If you have a strike or if you have a
ratification of a contract, it seems any reasonable and
thoughtful government would suggest that you go to the
membership. If you're in fact taking a decision that allows
certain parties out of a collective agreement, it seems rational
that the business manager or agent may want to discuss this with
his union membership. I don't think it's that irresponsible or
unreasonable to say that's a decision of the executive of the
union or the business manager of the union.
We're not forcing them to
do anything. We're saying: "Here are the conditions. If you would
like to sign this agreement, you can." Any reasonable person
would probably go back and discuss it with his membership. We're
not saying you have to; we're just saying that's a reasonable
position.
Mr
Christopherson: But in other circumstances, for a
strike, you did say they have to go back.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Well-
Mr
Christopherson: Minister, I listened to you.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I know, but I responded. A strike and an
arbitration and contract is different. We see it as
different.
Mr
Christopherson: You're suggesting there is a hierarchy
of importance and that strikes and ratifying contracts have a
higher priority than whether or not you want to have a union. It
seems to me that whether or not you want to have a union is the
overarching situation. You eliminated automatic certification and
said there has be a vote each and every time, but now some
members may find themselves abandoned and they didn't even get a
say.
Under this legislation, the
amendments you're making today, even if they do get a say-and I'm
like you, I think most unions will, but you're not requiring it,
as you've done elsewhere; not applying that philosophy here, as
you have applied it elsewhere, which is why I've characterized it
as rhetoric-even in an instance where the unions do hold a
membership vote, if my union voted 100% against being abandoned,
but the other trades voted that you are going to be abandoned, my
voice and my vote, and those of everyone else constituting 100%
of our bargaining unit, don't count. It's going to be people in
other trades who decide whether I get to have a union or not. It
seems to me that this is pretty dangerous territory to be going
into.
1710
First of all, it was bad
enough that it was voluntary-Minster, correct me if I'm wrong-but
you were putting this clause in the legislation in the first
place because if a union did abandon their members, they could be
charged with lack of duty to represent under the Ontario Labour
Relations Act. This legislation was meant to free them and save
them from being held accountable and that, on a voluntary basis,
they could abandon their bargaining rights and not be
charged.
Now, in the amendments
today we've gone a step further, a huge step forward in terms of
taking away individual members' rights, and now we're saying that
even if I and my colleagues vote 100% to keep our union, some
other union can decide that we don't get to keep our union, and
you're going to back it up by law with a regulation. I find this
very, very dangerous.
I can't express strongly
enough how I think certain unions are going to feel. I can recall
the IBEW, for instance, locals, I believe-and someone correct
me-in Sudbury and in Windsor, rolling in and saying, "We are not
going to voluntarily abandon our rights." If those local unions
vote 100% to maintain their union, they want their union, other
unions could vote otherwise and their union is taken away from
them. That's what this is, and you're going to back that up by
law. This is frightening stuff.
The Chair:
Mr Gill, you mentioned that you would like to get unanimous
consent to amend your amendment. I believe the appropriate procedure would be for
you to withdraw this and then to add a new amendment with
unanimous consent. The reason we need unanimous consent is
because committee had agreed-
Interjection.
Mr
Bartolucci: Madam Chair, you'd better clarify this. I
don't want to be debating this for the next hour. It's only
section 11, not the entire amendment, because if you do the
entire amendment, we will not get to another amendment.
The Chair:
I'm advised, however, because amendments had to be filed by 4
o'clock on Friday, that you need unanimous consent to receive new
amendments. The appropriate way to deal with this amendment is to
withdraw the current amendment and submit a new one with the
added words.
Mr
Christopherson: On a point of clarification, Chair: My
understanding is that the intent of the unanimous consent is to
add other trades to what the definition of "civil trades" is
here, but I also understand there is some controversy around
whether or not these are the appropriate terms and some question
of consistency of terms.
However, having said that,
I understand that it's unanimous consent. Is there any further
unanimous consent for this entire amendment to be carried once
you have amended it by unanimous consent?
The Chair:
No, just unanimous consent to move the new amendment, the
procedure of moving the new amendment, because we're past the
deadline. However, we will be taking a separate vote, clearly, on
the amendment itself.
Mr
Christopherson: First of all there are a couple of
points, if I might, a couple of things I want to put on the
record. It's interesting that the government's own rammed-through
process-and I realize we agreed to it, and the minister can say,
"You guys agreed," but like the unions, we had a gun put to our
heads in terms of, "If you want any hearings at all outside
Toronto, you've got to give us just one day of clause-by-clause."
We felt that gun too. The trades unions aren't the only ones.
But it's interesting that
the flaws and cracks really start to show when the government
themselves get hoisted on their own petard in terms of the
shortness of the time available. We completed hearings on
Thursday and the deadline was Friday, and now you've got caught
in your own ramming-through.
It's my understanding that
adding anything to this list adds more workers who are protected
from this clause, so I am going to offer up my agreement to
unanimous consent to add simply because it means that more
workers are protected. But under no condition should anyone think
that one small unanimous consent has anything to do with wanting
to grieve this process that is screwing workers big time, screwed
them badly enough in the original bill and is screwing them even
worse in these amendments.
The Chair:
Mr Gill.
Mr Gill:
If I understand it right, I have a couple of options. I suppose
the option of just adding into the amendment is not there, even
with the unanimous consent?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Just move the amendment, add the extra trades
in and let's get going.
Mr
Christopherson: Yes, he wants to cover up his mistake as
quickly as possible.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: No, I don't want to cover up my mistake.
Maybe the only mistake we made was recognizing the NDP as a
party. Possibly that was our big mistake.
Mr
Christopherson: That's his true feelings showing.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: You wouldn't be at the table.
The Chair:
Mr Gill, you've moved the amendment. Could you read the words
please?
Mr Gill: I
would like to add into the last page, page 3:
"Meaning of `civil
trades'
"(11) In this section,
"`civil trades' means
bricklayers, carpenters, labourers, operating engineers,
operative plasterers, cement masons and rodmen."
There are two words that I
am adding in: "bricklayers" and "cement masons."
Mr
Christopherson: Everybody else is just screwed.
The Chair:
Excuse me, "cement masons" being one word?
Mr Gill:
No, two words.
The Chair:
And "rodmen."
Mr Gill:
No, "rodmen" was already there, Madam Chair.
The Chair:
"Rodmen" is the last word, though?
Mr Gill:
That is correct.
The Chair:
Mr Bartolucci.
Mr
Bartolucci: No, "cement masons" goes after "operative
plasters."
The Chair:
Any debate?
Mr Gill:
This is where I'm seeking unanimous consent.
Mr
Christopherson: I have a question on that just before
you go on.
The Chair:
Unanimous consent has been granted.
Mr
Christopherson: We didn't vote. We didn't give unanimous
consent yet. He asked for it. He has moved it.
But before you move to the
request for unanimous consent, I have just a quick question. It's
relatively minor, but I've noticed that most governments have
been trying to use gender-neutral terms. We now fairly regularly
use "journeyperson" where for decades it was always "journeyman."
But I notice "rodmen" in here and I just wondered if there was
any reason why there wasn't an attempt-I realize some people
think it's funny, but overall it's going to make an important
improvement in our society, and this is a small piece of it. I'm
just asking the question, is there a reason why we didn't try for
gender-neutrality on this?
The Chair:
Is there any legal-
Ms Elizabeth
Baldwin: I'm sorry; I apologize. I was distracted. Could
you ask the question again?
Mr Christopherson: I was noting
that most governments in recent years have been attempting,
whenever legislation is amended, to try to use gender-neutral
terminology. As an example, when we did the apprenticeship bill,
I believe it was Bill 55, we used the term "journeyperson," as
much as it sounded really strange and still sounds a little
unusual to some people because for probably hundreds of years it
has been "journeyman." It's now "journeyperson" in the act.
I noticed there has been no
attempt to make "rodmen" gender-neutral. I was merely asking if
there was a particular reason why.
Ms
Baldwin: No, there wasn't. You're quite correct that we
do try to make it gender-neutral, and we haven't in this case.
It's a term that I wasn't aware of before. If there is a term
"rodperson" and we're doing this amendment, we could make that
change as well. I'd need to have some agreement-
Mr
Christopherson: I don't know whether it's "rodder," like
"fisher." I don't know. I'm not an expert in the field. It just
jumped out at me.
Ms
Baldwin: I don't know what the proper term would be in
gender-neutral language.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Madam Chair, I think they took the term from
the Ontario Labour Relations Board's definitions. At the board
they're determined as "rodman," so if we change it we might not
be covered by the Ontario Labour Relations Board definition of a
rodman.
Mr
Bartolucci: We should take that under advisement and go
with "rodman," but he's right; there's absolutely no question
he's right.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I'm not arguing with him.
The Chair:
OK. So noted.
Mr
Christopherson: Now you want our reluctant unanimous
consent.
The Chair:
Now, do we have unanimous consent? All in favour of unanimous
consent? OK.
Is there any debate on the
motion? No.
We have to vote on the
amendment as read by Mr Gill. Recorded vote. All in favour of the
amendment?
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 5, as
amended, carry? Recorded vote.
AYES
Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Beaubien, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
Section 6, any debate? Shall section 6 carry? Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
Section 7. Minister Stockwell.
1720
Hon Mr
Stockwell: It seems fairly obvious that we're not going
to get to the end-
The Chair:
I was going to call you "Stockman." Sorry.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Stockperson.
It seems fairly obvious
that we're not going to get to the end of the government motions
right now. I was wondering if we could get unanimous consent to
move the rest of the government motions and then use the rest of
the time to deal with the opposition motions?
Mr
Christopherson: What would the point be?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: So that we can get to them, and then at the
end of the day we could adjourn at 6 o'clock and have the bill as
amended sent back to the House.
The Chair:
I'm sorry but I'm advised, Minister Stockwell, that they must be
read into the record.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Then can I move, by unanimous consent, that
we simply deal with the government motions from now on in to get
them read into the record and adopted, and at 6 o'clock pass the
bill to send it back to the House.
Mr
Christopherson: And if that doesn't happen, Chair? If we
just keep debating and it's not concluded, it's my understanding
they're deemed to have been moved anyway.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: No, we're not under time allocation. They're
not deemed to be moved.
The Chair:
No.
Mr
Christopherson: So what happens to this committee
hearing? If we don't follow the minister's request, what exactly
happens at 6 o'clock?
The Chair:
My understanding is, first of all, that there is a vote at 10 to
six.
Mr
Christopherson: In the House?
The Chair:
Yes. So committee will have to adjourn for that vote. If the
committee does not agree to coming back at 6 o'clock the next
time we meet-oh, no, because we need-if it doesn't finish today,
that means that the next time we continue this will be at 3:30
tomorrow.
Mr
Christopherson: That's the regularly scheduled-
The Chair:
My understanding is that that's the next regularly scheduled
meeting of this committee.
Mr
Christopherson: Fine.
Mr Gill:
If you'll allow, I'll be happy to read in the government
amendments very quickly.
Mr Christopherson: No, you
won't.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Why?
Mr
Christopherson: Because we've got a lot to talk about
here.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: So you're not going to do it today?
Mr
Christopherson: Why should we?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Because you agreed to do it. You gave me your
word.
Mr
Christopherson: Well, you said at 6 o'clock these things
were all going to be wrapped up.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: No, no. You can only wrap up the agreement.
We're not under a time allocation motion. You gave me your word
we'd wrap up.
Mr
Christopherson: All right, listen. You asked, before, to
read them all ahead of time so that we could debate yours and
then we could spend time on ours. But if you have no intention of
supporting them, what would the point be?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Hold it. All I'm-
Mr
Christopherson: Why don't we just take a motion deeming
all the government amendments to be made, vote and get out of
here?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Because that's not in order.
Mr
Christopherson: I've got to tell you something.
The Chair:
It's not under time allocation.
Mr
Christopherson: It seems rather silly to me that we
would pass the government motions and then pretend that we're
giving any kind of serious attention to the opposition motions
when you have no intention of supporting any of them anyway.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Have we supported any yet?
Mr
Bartolucci: No, not yet.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Have we dealt with-
Mr
Bartolucci: No we haven't.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I'm not so sure that we aren't going to
support at least one or two of the amendments.
Mr
Christopherson: What if we don't get to them before six
o'clock?
Mr
Bartolucci: Can we try to find some common ground? I
have no problem having the government motions read in. I will not
be supporting them, with the exception of one, because I think
it's one that the building trades want with regard to benefits.
But then I would suggest that both Mr Christopherson and I would
like to ensure that there is no 18-month review. We'd like those
recommendations read into the record and voted on at that time-a
minimum of that one. Any others that we see fit to get to, we can
prioritize. The reality is-
Mr
Christopherson: It just seems to me, if I can, Rick,
that if we have the government motions read and vote on them,
we'd have to identify quickly any opposition amendments that are
going to be supported-you're saying that there might be one,
Minister-and if that's the case, fine. But to go beyond that just
gives credence to this charade because they have no intention of
supporting our other amendments. What's the point?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: OK, then let's just do the government
amendments and the one or two that you want to bring at the
end.
The Chair:
We've got 20 minutes. Why don't we just, as quickly as possible,
proceed through the amendments?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: We don't have time.
The Chair:
You don't have time-
Mr
Christopherson: No. If I could find any way at all to
take myself off the hook of the agreement we made, I would gladly
do it, but the fact is that we said there would be-in order to
get to travel to Windsor and Sudbury, which we did during our
constituency week, took away from our constituents, we agreed
that there would only be one day on clause-by-clause. If we're
going to do this, let's at least do it efficiently. I would agree
with reading the government motions, and let's see where we are
in terms of time.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Thank you.
Mr
Christopherson: I don't really want your thanks.
The Chair:
Do we need unanimous consent to vary the order? Is there
unanimous consent from all members of committee to proceed with
the government motions to be read into the record?
Mr Gill:
Yes.
Mr
Christopherson: Reluctantly.
The Chair:
Members of the committee, the advice I'm receiving is that,
because there are so many different amendments to each section,
it's counterproductive to deal with just the government motions
in those sections because you still have to deal with both the
NDP and the Liberal motions within those sections, because you
can't vote on the sections in total until those amendments have
been dealt with. I'm going to recommend that we proceed through
each section before us and see where we end up. We can deal with
government motion 20, but we cannot vote on section 7 until we've
dealt with all of the other motions. That's what I'm saying.
Mr
Christopherson: This is just so sad. It's a sad, sad
commentary on the state of democracy in this province,
really.
The Chair:
Let's deal with NDP motion 18. Is there any debate?
Mr Gill:
Madam Chair, just one second. If I may recommend-I'm not sure if
the members will agree-perhaps they want to withdraw the
amendments and then we can move on the government amendments
only.
Mr
Christopherson: Sometimes you've got to wonder why we
bother having the House and committees at all.
The Chair:
You're suggesting that the NDP and Liberal amendments be
withdrawn?
Mr Gill:
Perhaps they might want to. I'm just suggesting if they want to,
then it might expedite the whole process, but it's up to
them.
The Chair:
I don't hear any offers.
Mr
Bartolucci: The reality is that this ends at 6 o'clock
anyway. That's the deal to me: It just ends at 6 o'clock. So,
however we're going to get to an ending, let's get there, because right now I don't think
anybody in Ontario thinks what we're doing is democratic.
The Chair:
NDP motion 18: Any debate? It has to be read into the record.
Mr Gill:
Or he can withdraw it, Madam Chair.
Mr
Christopherson: It breaks my heart to agree with him,
but I will. I withdraw.
The Chair:
That's withdrawn. Liberal motion 19.
Mr
Bartolucci: I'll withdraw.
The Chair:
Government motion 20.
Mr Gill: I
move that paragraph 1 of subsection 163.2(4) of the act, as set
out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by striking out "and
benefits" at the end.
The Chair:
Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
Liberal motion 21.
1730
Mr
Bartolucci: I move that paragraph 1 of subsection
163.2(4) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be
struck out and the following substituted:
"1. The wage package,
overtime pay and shift differential."
The Chair:
Any debate? Recorded vote.
AYES
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
NAYS
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
The Chair:
That did not carry.
NDP motion 22.
Mr
Christopherson: I move that subsection 163.2(4) of the
act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the
following substituted:
"Restriction re
amendments
"(4) The application may
seek only amendments that concern wages, including overtime pay
and shift differentials."
The Chair:
Any debate? A recorded vote.
AYES
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
NAYS
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
The Chair:
That does not carry.
Liberal motion 23.
Mr
Bartolucci: Withdraw.
The Chair:
Government motion 24.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsection 163.2(4) of the act, as set out in section 7
of the bill, be amended by adding the following paragraph:
"6. Hours of work and work
schedules."
The Chair:
Any debate? Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
NDP motion 25.
Mr
Christopherson: Withdraw.
The Chair:
Liberal motion 26.
Mr
Bartolucci: Withdraw.
The Chair:
NDP motion 27.
Mr
Christopherson: Let me just note it's a waste. An awful
lot of expensive legal time has just gone out the window. Because
the government doesn't want to give us time to deal with this, I
withdraw it.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: No, the government didn't, actually. We made
a deal.
Mr
Christopherson: You forced us like you forced them.
The Chair:
NDP motion 28.
Mr
Christopherson: It's not fair. We're talking about
fairness, Chris. I withdraw.
The Chair:
Liberal motion 29.
Mr
Bartolucci: Withdraw.
The Chair:
NDP motion 30.
Mr
Christopherson: Withdraw.
The Chair:
NDP motion 31.
Mr
Christopherson: Withdraw.
The Chair:
Government motion 32.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsection 163.3(1) of the act, as set out in section 7
of the bill, be amended by striking out "employer bargaining
agency or a designated regional employers' organization having
members who carry on a business in the area covered by the
affiliated bargaining agent's geographic jurisdiction" and
substituting "applicant."
The Chair:
Any debate?
Mr
Christopherson: I'm not looking to hold things up, but
there was a lot of discussion around this, a lot of concern. Can
we get a quick answer from the minister on what this does?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: That just means that instead of having two or
three final offers, you only have one, and if there's a precedent
necessary, the precedent is that the applicant makes the final
offer rather than any of the other boards or agencies or
commissions. So there will only be two final offers, one from the
union and one from the employer.
The Chair:
A recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Liberal motion 33.
Mr
Bartolucci: I withdraw it because it was dealt with in
the previous motion.
The Chair:
Liberal motion 34.
Mr
Bartolucci: Withdrawn.
The Chair:
Government motion 35.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsection 163.3(4) of the act, as set out in section 7
of the bill, be amended by striking out "even if the organization
was not the applicant."
The Chair:
Any debate? A recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Government motion 36.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsection 163.3(5) of the act, as set out in section 7
of the bill, be amended by striking out that portion of the
subsection before clause (a) and substituting the following:
"Service of notice
"(5) The organization
making the referral shall serve the notice of referral and the
statements and submissions referred to in clause (2)(c) on the
affiliated bargaining agent and shall serve a copy of the notice
of referral without those statements and submissions."
The Chair:
Any debate? A recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Liberal motion 37.
Mr
Bartolucci: I withdraw Liberal motions 37, 38, 39, 40
and 41.
The Chair:
You can't withdraw 38. That's a government motion.
Mr
Bartolucci: Oh, excuse me. It was a nice try, though,
eh?
The Chair:
That was a test, was it?
Mr
Bartolucci: It was.
The Chair:
OK, you're withdrawing 39, 40 and 41?
Mr
Bartolucci: Yes, and 42.
The Chair:
Government motion 38.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsection 163.3(6) of the act, as set out in section 7
of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Service of response
"(6) Within seven days
after being served with a notice of referral, the affiliated
bargaining agent,
"(a) shall serve a response
on the organization that made the referral; and
"(b) shall serve a copy of
the response, without the submissions, if any, referred to in
clause (7)(c), on the organizations described in clauses (5)(a),
(b) and (c)."
The Chair:
Any debate? A recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Government motion 43.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsections 163.3(15), (16) and (17) of the act, as set
out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following
substituted:
"Other organizations
"(15) The organization
making the referral shall advise the arbitrator of the names and
mailing addresses of the organizations that were served with a
copy of the notice of referral under clauses (5)(a), (b) or
(c)."
The Chair:
Any debate? A recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Mr
Bartolucci: Madam Chair, I withdraw motions 44, 45 and
46.
The Chair:
Mr Bartolucci has withdrawn 44 through 46. Government motion
47.
Mr Gill: I
move that paragraph 5 of subsection 163.3(24) of the act, as set
out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out.
The Chair:
Any debate? A recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Mr
Bartolucci: Madam Chair, I withdraw motions 48, 49, 50
and 51.
The Chair: Withdrawn.
Government motion 52.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsection 163.3(28) of the act, as set out in section
7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Failure to serve an
organization
"(28) If the arbitrator
becomes aware that an organization that shall have been served
with a copy of a notice of referral under subsection (5) or a
copy of a response under subsection (6) was not so served, the
arbitrator shall arrange for service on that organization."
The Chair:
Mr Gill, for the record, would you confirm that you said "shall"
rather than "should" under "Failure to serve an organization,"
line one? I did hear you say "shall" have been served, rather
than "should." Should it be "should" or "shall"?
Mr Gill:
That word should be "should."
The Chair:
Fine. For the record, we'll note that it should be "should."
Any further debate? A
recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Government motion 53.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsections 163.3(29) and (30) of the act, as set out
in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following
substituted:
"Arbitrator's powers
"(29) Subsection 48(12)
applies with necessary modifications with respect to the
arbitrator."
The Chair:
Any debate? A recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Government motion 54.
1740
Mr Gill: I
move that subsection 163.3(32) of the act, as set out in section
7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Decision
"(32) After considering the
submissions and final offers which he or she may consider under
this section, the arbitrator,
"(a) shall determine
whether the provisions of the provincial agreement render
employers who are bound by it at a competitive disadvantage with
respect to the kind of work, the market and the location
indicated in the application;
"(b) if the arbitrator
finds that the provisions of the provincial agreement render
employers who are bound by it at a competitive disadvantage,
shall determine whether the competitive disadvantage would be
removed if the provincial agreement were amended in accordance
with either of the final offers;
"(c) if amendment of the
provincial agreement in accordance with only one of the final
offers would remove the competitive advantage, shall select that
final offer;
"(d) if amendment of the
provincial agreement in accordance with neither of the final
offers would remove the competitive disadvantage, shall select
the final offer that most reduces the disadvantage; and
"(e) if amendment of the
provincial agreement in accordance with either of the final
offers would remove the competitive disadvantage, shall select
the final offer that would be less of a deviation from the
provincial agreement."
The Chair:
Any debate? Recorded vote.
AYES
Chudleigh, DeFaria,
Beaubien, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Liberal motion 55.
Mr
Bartolucci: I withdraw Liberal motion 55.
The Chair:
Withdrawn. Government motion 56.
Mr Gill: I
move that subsection 163.3(33) of the act, as set out in section
7 of the bill, be amended be struck out and the following
substituted:
"Timing of decision
"(33) Subject to subsection
(35), the arbitrator shall give his or her written decision to
the parties and any organizations that were served under
subsection (5) or (28) within 12 days after the day on which he
or she was appointed."
The Chair:
Mr Gill, I think that should be "amended by striking out and the
following substituted." Do you agree with that?
Mr Gill: I
would like to correct that second line-
The Chair:
Where it says "be amended be struck out."
Mr Gill:
"Be amended by striking out."
Hon Mr
Stockwell: It's struck out. Let's go.
The Chair:
But it does have to be read into the record, Minister. I'm
sorry.
Is there any debate?
Recorded vote.
AYES
Chudleigh, DeFaria,
Beaubien, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair: That carries.
Mr
Bartolucci: I withdraw 57.
The Chair:
NDP motion 58?
Mr
Christopherson: Withdrawn.
The Chair:
Liberal motion-
Mr
Bartolucci: I withdraw Liberal motions 59, 60, 61, and
62.
The Chair:
Shall section 7, as amended, carry?
Recorded vote.
AYES
Chudleigh, DeFaria,
Beaubien, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Moving to section 8,
government motion 63.
Mr Gill: I
move that section 163.5 of the act, as set out in section 8 of
the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Election
"163.5(1) A provincial
agreement shall be deemed to include the following provision with
respect to an employer who is bound by it if the employer so
elects:
"1. Up to 75 per cent of
the employees who perform work in fulfilling a contract for
construction in the industrial, commercial and institutional
sector of the construction industry may be individuals who were
hired by the employer without referral from or selection,
designation, assignment or scheduling by or the concurrence of
the affiliated bargaining agent in whose geographic jurisdiction
the work is performed.
"2. For the purpose of
article 1, no more than 40% of the employees who perform work in
fulfilling the contract may be individuals who are not members of
the affiliated bargaining agent in whose geographic jurisdiction
the work is performed.
"3. The percentages set out
in articles 1 and 2 must apply with reference to the number of
employees of the employer who perform work under the provincial
agreement on each day during the period in which the contract is
being fulfilled.
"Scope of election
"(2) The election may be
made with respect to one or more or all of the construction
contracts that the employer fulfills using employees who perform
work under the provincial agreement.
"Manner of election
"(3) An election under
subsection (1) shall be made by giving written notice of the
election to the employee bargaining agency that is party to the
provincial agreement.
"Restriction re: membership
in local"-
Mr
Christopherson: On a point of order: I'm sorry. I've got
to go up. I know when the bells ring we adjourn the House; we
don't adjourn them for the voice vote. I have to be there to be
one of five standing to force a vote on something. I withdraw
item 70 and, for the record, I'm against everything else that the
government is putting forward. I've got to go.
The Chair:
Carry on, Mr Gill.
Mr Gill:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
"Restriction re: membership
in local
"(4) Nothing in article 1
of the provision set out in subsection (1) permits an employer to
employ an individual who is not a member of the affiliated
bargaining agent in whose geographic jurisdiction the work is
performed if,
"(a) the provincial
agreement would prohibit that employment; and
"(b) the employment of the
individual is not permitted under article 2 of the provision.
"Restriction: membership in
affiliate
(5) Nothing in article 2 of
the provision set out in subsection (1) permits an employer to
employ an individual who is not a member of an affiliated
bargaining agent that is subordinate or directly related to the
same provincial, national or international trade union as the
affiliated bargaining agent in whose geographic jurisdiction the
work is performed if the provincial agreement would prohibit that
employment.
"Inconsistency
"(6) Subject to subsection
163.4(3), a provision in a provincial agreement that is
inconsistent with an article in the provision set out in
subsection (1) is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no
effect.
"Decreased percentages
"(7) An employee bargaining
agency and an employer bargaining agency may agree that an
employer may not make the election under subsection (1) or may
agree to either or both of the following:
"1. That article 1 of the
provision set out in subsection (1) shall be read as if it
referred to a specified percentage less than 75 per cent.
"2. That article 2 of the
provision set out in subsection (1) shall be read as if it
referred to a specified percentage less than 40 per cent.
"Restriction re:
impasse
"(8) No strike or lockout
shall be called or authorized because there is a failure to reach
an agreement under subsection (7).
"Increased percentages
"(9) An employee bargaining
agency and an employer bargaining agency may agree to any or all
of the following:
"1. That article 1 of the
provision set out in subsection (1) shall be read as if it
referred to a specified percentage of more than 75 per cent.
"2. That article 2 of the
provision set out in subsection (1) shall be read as if it
referred to a specified percentage of more than 40 per cent.
"3. That article 3 of the
provision set out in subsection (1) shall be read as if it
required the percentages set out in sections 1 and 2 of the
provision to be applied with reference to the total number of
employees of the employer who perform work under the provincial
agreement during the
entire period in which the contract is being fulfilled.
"Non-application of
section
"(10) This section does not
apply with respect to a project agreement made under section
163.1."
The Chair:
Any debate? Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria.
NAYS
Bartolucci.
The Chair:
That carries.
Mr
Bartolucci: Madam Chair, I withdraw motions 64, 65, 66,
67, and 68. I believe the recommendation that the Liberal Party
recommends voting against section 9 of the bill has all-party
support. Can we vote on that?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: We vote on section 8, as amended.
Mr
Bartolucci: Section 9.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I know, but we vote on section 8, as
amended.
Mr
Bartolucci: We did already.
The Chair:
No, we haven't done government motion 73 yet.
Interjections.
The Chair:
Section 7-did we do that as amended? OK. Section 8.
Mr Gill:
Madam Chair, if I may, I may have misread something in the
record: page 54, under section (c), the second-last line. Let me
read that: "final offers would remove the competitive
disadvantage," it should have said.
The Chair:
I need unanimous consent to reopen that section. All in favour?
Mr Gill has changed "advantage" to "disadvantage," page 3.
All in favour? That
carries.
Section 8, as amended?
Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci.
The Chair:
That does not carry.
Interjections.
The Chair:
That does carry. I was just doing that to see if you were awake,
Minister.
Section 9.
Mr
Bartolucci: This is a Liberal recommendation, Madam
Chair. It recommends voting against section 9 of the bill, and I
believe we have all-party support for that.
The Chair:
All in favour?
AYES
Bartolucci, Beaubien,
Chudleigh, DeFaria, Gill.
Mr
Bartolucci: I withdraw motion 71.
The Chair:
Does section 9, as amended, carry?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: There is no 9 any more.
The Chair:
Sorry. Section 9 was voted against, so it has been struck.
Shall section 10 carry?
Recorded vote.
AYES
Chudleigh, DeFaria,
Beaubien, Gill.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 11 carry, the
title? Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci.
The Chair:
That carries. Sorry, Mr Bartolucci.
Mr
Bartolucci: That's not a problem.
The Chair:
Shall the long title of the bill carry? Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci.
The Chair:
Shall Bill 69, as amended, carry? Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, Chudleigh,
DeFaria, Gill.
NAYS
Bartolucci.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall I report the bill, as
amended, to the House? Recorded vote.
