Labour Relations
Amendment Act (Construction Industry), 2000, Bill 69,
Mr Stockwell / Loi de 2000 modifiant la Loi sur
les relations de travail (industrie de la construction),
projet de loi 69, M. Stockwell
Hon Chris Stockwell, Minister of Labour
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 Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale
PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Cornelia Schuh, legislative counsel,
Ministry of the Attorney General
The committee met at 1540 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): I call the meeting to order. Good afternoon,
ladies and gentlemen. This is a meeting of the standing committee
on justice and social policy to consider Bill 69, An Act to amend
the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in relation to the construction
industry.
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order,
Madam Chair: I seek your guidance as to where this would be
appropriate, but I want to raise the fact that I wish to put
before you an argument that the proposed amendment tabled by the
minister yesterday is a major departure from the original bill.
Notwithstanding that the Speaker ruled, the Speaker did
acknowledge that he hadn't yet seen the regulation, so I will
argue that still allows this to be considered by yourself and the
Speaker. In light of those arguments, I'm going to suggest to you
that the amendment is out of order and I seek your guidance as to
when you would like me to make that case.
The Chair:
What I would like to do is to hear from all members of the
committee as to their opinions on whether they feel it's in order
and then we'll discuss whether we debate it.
Mr
Christopherson: I didn't make the argument yet. I was
seeking your guidance as to when I would be able to make that
argument.
The Chair:
OK, you're allowed to make it now, Mr Christopherson, bearing in
mind, if I may, that at 4:30 we automatically go into
clause-by-clause consideration of the bill with no further
debate.
Mr
Christopherson: Let me just say that if you're
suggesting that somehow my taking up some time may damage the
sensitive balance of democracy that the government has placed
before us, I don't think that's anything we need to worry
about.
The Chair:
It really doesn't have anything to do with that. The order of the
day, and I should read this into the record, Mr Christopherson,
says:
"That, pursuant to standing
order 75(c) the chair of the standing committee on justice and
social policy shall establish a deadline for filing of amendments
with the clerk of the committee; and
"That the standing committee
on justice and social policy shall be authorized to meet November
16, 2000, for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and
"That the committee be
authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on that
day until completion of clause-by-clause consideration; and
"That, at 4:30 p.m. on the
day designated for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,
those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to
have been moved, and the chair of the committee shall interrupt
the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment,
put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections
of the bill, and any amendments thereto. Any division required
shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and
taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed
pursuant to standing order 127(a)."
I understand that's enough
for the record, Mr Christopherson, so please proceed. You have,
as I say, until 4:30.
Mr
Christopherson: I appreciate your reading that.
All of that is just a nice
legal way of saying that at 4:30 the workers' rights are screwed
because all debate ends and the government's going to ram this
amendment through. I understand that. Nonetheless, I want to make
what I think is a very legitimate and serious submission. We'll
read into the record in part an opinion forwarded to you by
Koskie Minsky. I believe that you may have a copy of that;
certainly it's addressed to you.
Let me begin by saying that I
know the Speaker has ruled on this once, but if you look at the
Speaker's ruling, in part he said that without actually having
the amendment in front of him and knowing the extent of the
amendment, he couldn't possibly rule on whether or not that was
out of order vis-à-vis the original intent of Bill 69. So
number one, I would argue that making this argument is in order,
and secondly, I want to suggest to you that-
Mr Raminder Gill
(Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): On a point of order,
Madam Chair: I'm just wondering if we should have a copy of that
legal opinion if he's going to be referring to it in any
substantial way.
The Chair:
Yes, actually that opinion has been placed before me and we'll
get a copy distributed to everyone.
Mr
Christopherson: I would suggest to you, Chair, that the
arguments contained in the legal opinion should be enough to sway
you and the Speaker to rule this out of order. The original Bill
69 was very limited in terms of the authority it granted to the
minister. It detailed a very specific process that had to be
followed before the minister could exercise the power that Bill
69, as presented to the House the first time, had indicated, that
being that there had to be relevant employee bargaining agencies
that had initiated such action and that they voluntarily provided
written proof of the desire of the majority of the agencies to
effect a change in status. That's a very detailed, very specific
and very limited procedure to be followed.
I would suggest to you, with
respect, that now moving to an amendment such as we have before
us, which gives broad sweeping powers to the minister, not just
to the affected eight general contractors that have been the
focus of this discussion-but there's no geographical containment
and no reference to how the unions may or may not feel about this
as a suggestion, and this power, over the course of one year,
notwithstanding the minister's "Trust me, trust me" statement in
the House, nonetheless gives the Minister of Labour the absolute,
sweeping powers to wipe out the bargaining rights of every
construction worker in the province of Ontario over the course of
one year.
The minister is claiming
that's not his intent. He went so far as to say that we could
take him at his word, that if it wasn't exactly what he said,
then we could hold him accountable. That may or may not be. He
may or may not be the minister the day the regulation is
proclaimed. That is not the crux of my argument, nor should his
assurances be a part of this argument.
The fact of the matter is
that originally there were very specific steps that had to be
followed; there was strictly limited access to the power the
minister ultimately would have, in the original bill. Now we have
an amendment that, if passed, would create a bill that gives the
minister, with the stroke of a pen, in a regulation, the ability
to eliminate the collective bargaining rights of any worker in
the construction industry across the province over the course of
one year. That is a substantive departure from the very limited,
strict interpretation that was provided in the original Bill 69
as reported from committee to the House.
I quote from the legal
interpretation that has been presented to you, Chair, and I put
on the record:
"There is no apparent
legislative restriction on the exercise or scope of this power.
It does not have to be `triggered' by any agreement of the
union(s) involved. It makes no reference to whether there are
still employees working in the bargaining unit at the time that
the order is made, or the majority wishes of either their
bargaining agents or the employees themselves. Indeed, from our
review of the amendment, it has the potential for tremendous
abuse if certain employers took advantage of the amendment and
effectively lobbied to have their collective agreements
extinguished.
"Finally, the proposed
amendments appear to be inconsistent with the prevailing
principles of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. In our opinion, the
unrestricted power to extinguish bargaining rights by regulation
is at odds with the stated principles of the act to `facilitate
collective bargaining between employers and trade unions that are
the freely designated representatives of the employees,' to
`promote ... employee involvement in the workplace' and `to
encourage co-operative participation of employers and trade
unions in resolving workplace issues.'
"In summary, it is our
opinion that the proposed amendment to Bill 69 constitutes a
substantial change to the bill."
1550
I would also put on the
record that they say:
"In our opinion, such
far-reaching power to extinguish bargaining rights by regulation
is unprecedented in labour relations regulation in this province.
Given the magnitude of this power, we must assume that it most
certainly would have been the subject of intense scrutiny and
debate if it had been included in the original version of Bill
69. We understand that the Minister of Labour has made reference
to his intended purpose of this amendment as an enabling
function. We understand that the minister's stated objective was
apparently to allow eight general contractors to be relieved of
non-civil trades obligations outside of board area 8, flowing
from the Toronto building trades working agreement."
Again, it's fine for the
minister to give those assurances. There's a world of difference
between the accountability that we can hold a minister to, in
terms of what he says in the House versus the ability of a
minister with the kind of sweeping powers that this amendment
would give them under Bill 69.
I suspect that the minister
knows that this is likely challengeable under the charter, first
of all, but before we get to that point I want to urge you to
recognize that this amendment is a major departure from the
original intent of Bill 69. It gives sweeping powers to the
Minister of Labour beyond anything we've ever seen before and
certainly beyond anything envisioned in Bill 69, even after it
was amended, much to the surprise of the labour leaders who were
in the room at the time.
So, Chair, I am asking you
and urging you to recognize the strength of this argument and
rule that this amendment is indeed out of order and has no place
before the business of this committee.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Christopherson. Minister Stockwell.
Hon Chris Stockwell
(Minister of Labour): If my friend wants to go ahead,
that's fine by me.
Mr Dominic Agostino
(Hamilton East): Thank you. Just to add briefly to what
my colleague from Hamilton West has said, I fully agree that this amendment
is one based on, "Trust me, I'll do the right thing." Even if we
take that literally and even if we give the benefit of the doubt
to the minister and say, "That's fine," the reality is that it
has absolutely no other binding jurisdiction beyond simply the
minister saying, "Trust me, I'm not going to go too far with
these powers you have given me."
The reality is that Mike
Harris may decide in a month to shuffle the cabinet and move Mr
Stockwell to the finance ministry or something and then you'd
have a situation where you have a new minister there, where
there'd be, first of all, absolutely nothing binding whatsoever
to the commitment made by the current minister. It's not even
binding on the current minister, frankly, not even on you,
Minister.
So the way it is worded is so
wide open. First of all, let me tell you that Bill 69 itself is
bad and shouldn't be here. That being said, what you're trying
now through the wording of this amendment, which I believe is
substantially different than the bill-and I think the legislation
and rules that we work with around here are clear, that
amendments cannot be substantially different or change the intent
of the legislation it has been added to. Clearly this changes or
has the power to change the intent of the legislation. It can go
way beyond the intended scope of the minister and there's no
legal authority within this piece of legislation, within this
amendment, to restrict the minister from carrying out full broad
powers and scope. No one has yet said, "Yes, it is." I'd be
interested if the minister can point out in here where it limits
his powers, beyond simply saying, "Trust me, I'll do the right
thing and I won't go beyond that."
It's not good enough, it's
not binding, it means absolutely nothing. We're in the
Legislature with a bill, and frankly this has taken what was one
aspect of a piece of legislation that we were debating in the
House and totally opened it up now to include what I would
suggest is going to be a totally different intent and meaning to
it. I don't believe this amendment belongs here, Madam Chair. I
believe it should be ruled out of order. I think the fancy
changes, the bill we're debating-I think the government would
have to bring in another piece of legislation with that bill
itself if that was its intent. I just find it hard to understand
why, in the amendment, the minister would not have limited the
scope of his powers to the agreement that had been made or the
discussions that had been held if that was truly his intent and
the intent of the government. I don't think we should leave it to
chance. I think it is totally inappropriate to be here, and I
would ask you, Madam Chair, to rule that way.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I listened very carefully to the arguments
made by Mr Agostino and Mr Christopherson. They appear to be
based on political decision-making and political issues. They may
be good debating points. I'm not really sure where it is they've
determined that the bill, or the amendment, is out of order. The
only thing I could get out of Mr Steinberg's letter, from Koskie
Minsky, is that he suggested the rights were deemed. Both of them
are deemed, in both amendments. They're both very similar in that
respect.
Furthermore, for an amendment
to be out of order, Madam Chair, an amendment must not have been
dealt with in the original part of the bill-that there was no
discussion, no talk, no change in the original form. But there
was. The fact remains that an amendment therefore can be in order
if you are simply amending a portion of an act that you were
dealing with in the first place.
You may argue that it goes a
long way or it's more extreme etc. That may be a good political
debate, but it doesn't make the amendment out of order. The
amendment is universally in order as long as you deal within the
framework of that legislation, which is what we're doing, which
is part of this bill. It deems, through the Lieutenant Governor
in Council, the power to deem bargaining rights in the reg-making
powers, and both of them deemed that as well. The fact is that
although these may be good arguments for debate in the House, or
maybe even good questions, I didn't really hear any tangible
evidence why the amendment would be out of order.
The Chair:
Any further speakers?
Mrs Lyn McLeod
(Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I believe it is relevant to the
debate about whether the amendment is in order. Can I ask the
minister for an explanation of whether, in his view, this
amendment would give him, through regulation, the ability to
supersede any parts of the Labour Relations Act.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Frankly, I don't know if that's a question of
whether the bill is in order or not in order. As I said before,
it could be an interesting question-
Mrs McLeod:
It's a question of whether or not it's a substantive change to
the bill.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I see your point. In my opinion, no, it is
not a substantive change to the bill.
Mrs McLeod:
I would consider this to be a substantive change. If the
amendment gives you regulatory power to supersede the Labour
Relations Act in any way, that's a substantive change.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: In any way, shape or form? No, of course it
doesn't give me the overriding power to change the Labour
Relations Act in any way, shape or form. I mean, that's a huge
bill.
Mrs McLeod:
Not any aspect of it?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: It gives you limited powers, within one
sector, within one industry, to make some changes. That's it. You
can't change-
Mrs McLeod:
It doesn't give you the right to supersede the rights for that
particular group of people that they would hold under the Labour
Relations Act? As you know, a number of pieces of legislation
have come forward from your government which have been referred
to in the courts as Henry VIII clauses, in which the government
has given itself, through its cabinet powers, the ability to
override rights that are designated through existing acts. I'm
questioning whether or not this amendment has the force of
changing your bill to give you that power.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: No, this deals with one specific
industry.
Mrs McLeod: And allows them all the
rights they currently hold in that industry under the Labour
Relations Act?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Oh, are you saying, can we make some
changes?
Mrs McLeod:
I'm asking whether you in any way can override the rights that
group of workers has under the Labour Relations Act through
regulatory change in the future with this amendment.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Well, no, the amendment is time-limited as
well, so no, you couldn't forever. It's grandfathered after one
year.
Mrs McLeod:
Not forever, but in that period of time.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: But as to the specific question, I'll take it
into consideration. I don't believe so, but let me consult before
I respond.
The Chair:
Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: Let me say first of all that I made
reference in my earlier submission that I felt there are likely
arguments here for a challenge under the charter in terms of the
rights we have: freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Since I believe it would indeed be found to be in violation of
the charter of rights, it would by extension, if you agreed with
that, have to be out of order here. I leave that argument in
front of you.
1600
Secondly, to respond to the
Minister, I think you'll find that Mr Steinberg points out very
clearly, and I think he makes an excellent point, that the-well
I'll read it directly:
"In our opinion, the
unrestricted power to extinguish bargaining rights by regulation
is at odds with the stated principles of the act to `facilitate
collective bargaining between employers and trade unions that are
the freely designated representatives of the employees,' to
`promote ... employee involvement in the workplace' and `to
encourage co-operative participation of employers and trade
unions in resolving workplace issues.'"
I agree with my colleague Mr
Agostino that Bill 69 is horrible enough as it is, but one has to
note that at least there was the involvement of the unions in the
process that led to the minister having these powers to
extinguish rights that construction workers now have.
If you've got an amendment in
front of the committee that goes against the act, where the act
says that the purpose of the act is to have employees involved
and the bill that was reported to the House maintained that
employees had a role to play, albeit in a dirty business-there
was a role offered to them. That role is extinguished, just as
dead as the collective bargaining rights of the workers are
extinguished, by the stroke of the pen that this amendment gives.
Not only does it change substantively what Bill 69, as reported
to the House, was going to do, it removes that part of Bill 69
that was consistent with the act that said the purpose of the act
is to have a role for the workers or their democratically elected
representatives to play. This amendment removes the role that the
workers had in the amended Bill 69.
My argument is that the
amended Bill 69, as odious as it was, at least was consistent
with the act. The amendment before us now makes Bill 69
inconsistent with the act in that it takes away the role of
employees and their democratically elected representatives which
was contained in Bill 69, which at least made it consistent with
the act.
The Chair:
I'm not sure. Is that a question? Did you want a response from
the Minister? Mr Agostino is also down to speak.
Mr
Christopherson: We've still got 25 minutes, so whether
the minister responds directly or waits until after Mr Agostino
is up to you.
The Chair:
Mr Agostino?
Mr Agostino:
Minister, if you want to answer that, because my question is to
the legislative counsel actually.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: OK. I'm trying to understand where you think
the amendment would be out of order. I'm not trying to be
pedantic about this; I'm trying my best. The best I understand is
that you're suggesting that we are by amendment overriding
bargaining rights obtained under the LRA. That seems to be the
thrust of your legal opinion and seems to be the thrust of your
comments.
Mr
Christopherson: In part, that's one of the arguments
that I'm making. Bill 69 was consistent with the act in that
there was a role for employees. That's gone now.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: OK, let me say this. The original bill did
the same thing, exactly the same thing.
Mr
Christopherson: That's not what we reported to the
House.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Yes, the original bill-
Mr
Christopherson: The original bill was amended. You
brought that amendment in that had the formula in there.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: OK, but the original bill did exactly the
same thing, so how could the amendment then be out of order?
Mr
Christopherson: Now I think you're talking in circles. I
don't think you addressed specifically what I was saying. Whether
or not the original bill was in order or out of order is academic
now because that's not where we are.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: No, it's not academic at all, because whether
an amendment is in order or not in order depends very much on
what the bill says.
Mr
Christopherson: The bill says the employees have a role
to play before you get your unilateral power, and that's
consistent with the act. This amendment takes away the role of
employees, and that's inconsistent with the act.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Mr Christopherson, I still would have
overridden bargaining rights obtained under the Labour Relations
Act. In the original bill-
Mr
Christopherson: But I'm not making that point. I'm
making the point about the involvement of the employees.
Hon Mr Stockwell: But that cannot
put it out of order. You've got to make an argument that the
amendment doesn't deal with the bill. Frankly, I don't know how
you make that argument by suggesting the employees had a role to
play, because it would still have overridden rights obtained
under the Labour Relations Act, and the amendment overrides it in
exactly the same way.
Mr
Christopherson: Except that the process that got you
there was consistent with the act in that the workers and their
representatives still had a role. Now there's no role.
The Chair: I
think we're moving into debate. Mr Agostino.
Mr Agostino:
My question is to legislative counsel. It's true that maybe I'm
asking you to make a political judgment on whether it would
happen or not happen, but the minister today, when asked in the
House, when I said that the abandonment issue was restricted to
non-civil trade bargaining rights for the eight general
contractors, or again, to the extension of the Toronto-Central
Ontario Building Trades Council working agreement outside of
border area 8, basically said, "Yes, that's my intent. I don't
plan to go beyond that intent."
Just from a legal opinion,
not whether to politically do it or not do it, does the amendment
in front of us give the minister the power to rule the
abandonment of these contracts in the civil and non-civil trades
anywhere across the province of Ontario? If a minister or a
government chose to do that, does the amendment to the bill that
is here today give that minister or that government that power
anywhere across Ontario on the abandonment issue of any civil or
non-civil contracts opening?
Ms Cornelia
Schuh: It's not restricted to any part of Ontario. It's
restricted to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector
of the construction industry.
Mr Agostino:
Is it restricted to the civil or non-civil trades? Is it
restricted to either, or is it open to both the civil and
non-civil trades?
Ms Schuh:
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with those categories.
The Chair:
Members of committee, I have some concern now that we're sort of
venturing away from what's in front of us. I believe legal
counsel has already indicated that she is not able to answer the
question.
Mr Agostino:
But it does open it up to anywhere across Ontario. The amendment
that is in front of us gives the minister the power to-
The Chair:
No, I'm not going to-
Mr
Agostino: It's relevant, Madam Chair, because it's-
The Chair:
I think what is relevant is that I have been asked here to make
an opinion on whether or not the amendment in front of us is in
order, and you want a legal opinion.
I want to read, first of
all, from Hansard. Speaker McLean ruled as follows in 1995: "Our
precedents indicate that the Speaker is not in a position to
render legal advice or an opinion...." I refer the member to
rulings at page 4257 of the Hansard for June 13, 1988, page 692
of the Hansard for April 23, 1990, and page 213 of the Hansard
for April 22, 1993. I'm only grateful that I didn't have to refer
to refer to any Hansard coming from Speaker Stockwell.
Speaking of Speaker
Warner-and I'm really pleased that Mrs Elliott was the only one
who got my joke-"Speakers ... in this Parliament and other
Parliaments throughout the Commonwealth have consistently held
the view that the Speaker will not give a decision upon a
constitutional question or decide a question of law; nor will the
Speaker give a decision on a hypothetical question." That was
Speaker Warner on Monday, April 23, 1990. Speaker Edighoffer on
Monday, June 13, 1988, ruled, "As I have said, the Speaker is the
protector of the rights of members to seek information, but is
not here to give legal advice nor to advise members on the
application of the law of the province."
Having said that, and
having carefully reviewed both the amendment and the bill, I am
determining that the amendment is in order and would suggest that
we now go through clause-by-clause consideration.
1610
Mr
Christopherson: On a point of order, Chair: I would like
to move that the committee appeal your decision to the Speaker of
the House.
The Chair:
My understanding is that you can't actually do that on a point of
order.
Mr
Christopherson: When may I do it?
Mr
Agostino: Move a motion.
Mr
Christopherson: I need the floor.
The Chair:
I'll turn the floor over to you. It's not a point of order, Mr
Christopherson, but you can move that as a motion.
Mr
Christopherson: Fair enough. I move then that this
committee, with respect, appeal your decision to the Speaker of
the House. I'd like a recorded vote, please.
The Chair:
We have a motion to refer my ruling to the Speaker of the House.
Recorded vote.
AYES
Christopherson,
Agostino.
NAYS
Beaubien, Elliot, Gill.
Mr Carl DeFaria
(Mississauga East): Abstain.
Mr
Christopherson: Like that's going to help you.
The Chair:
That does not carry. We'll go back to clause-by-clause
consideration of Bill 69. It is still debatable until 4:30. Any
debate on section 1?
Mr
Christopherson: May I make a suggestion? Given the
absolute limit in time that's left, could I suggest that the real
issue before us here today is the amendment that was tabled by
the minister yesterday. If we've got to choose what to debate, at
the very least we ought to be giving it a 14-minute airing as to
how people feel about this, especially since nobody in the public
or any of the union
leaders who represent the people who are affected by this bill,
who are going to lose their rights under this bill, are going to
be given an opportunity to speak. At the very least, the
opposition members ought to be given an opportunity to comment on
it, rather than have the 14 minutes dwindle away on the other
clauses contained in Bill 69.
The Chair:
OK, we need unanimous consent to stand down. You want section 5,
I take it, Mr Christopherson. Is the committee in agreement with
that? Does the committee agree with standing section 5 down?
Mrs Brenda Elliott
(Guelph-Wellington): Just a question, Madam Chair. I
want to be assured that in moving to one particular section of
the bill we're not debating earlier sections that are affected.
We don't normally change the order of amendments that are being
debated, for very good reason.
The Chair:
No. My understanding is that Mr Christopherson just wants section
5 stood down for discussion in the next few minutes until 4:30.
In order to do that, I need unanimous consent. Minister Stockwell
has a question on that.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Well, I'm not opposed to that, but I'm
concerned with respect to the time allocation motion we're
working under. We're OK? OK.
Mr
Christopherson: There's a whole lot of things we're not
going to talk about. This won't be one of them.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: OK. I just wanted to make sure that we
weren't contravening any of the standing orders.
The Chair:
Is there unanimous consent to stand down sections 1 to 4?
Mr
Christopherson: We'll stand down 1 to 4 so that we can
deal with 5.
The Chair:
To deal with 5, agreed? Agreed. Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: Now, whether we're into legal points or
political points, the fact is they're points. The Minister, until
yesterday-
Mr Gill:
On a point of order, Chair: Should we not read the amendment into
the record before we start discussing it?
The Chair:
Yes, you should move it. That's correct.
Mr Gill:
If I may.
Mr
Christopherson: Is this your big 15 minutes?
The Chair:
You can't dispense.
Mr Gill: I
move that section 5 of the bill as amended and reported to the
Legislative Assembly on May 30, 2000 be struck out and the
following substituted:
"5(1) The act is amended by
adding the following section:
"Deemed abandonment of
bargaining rights-"
Mr
Christopherson: Can you read a little slower?
Mr Gill:
English is my second language, so I have to take my time. I don't
want to make a mistake.
The Chair:
Please, Mr Christopherson.
Mr Gill:
"160.1(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation,
deem bargaining rights held by an employee bargaining agency and
its affiliated bargaining agents to be abandoned with respect to
an employer or a class of employers.
"Scope of regulation
"(2) A regulation made
under subsection (1) may apply with respect to all of Ontario or
any part or parts of it.
"Effect of regulation
"(3) On the day a
regulation made under this section comes into force
"(a) the affiliated
bargaining agents of the employee bargaining agency referred to
in the regulation cease to represent the employees of the
employer employed in the industrial, commercial and institutional
sector of the construction industry in the area to which the
regulation applies;
"(b) the bargaining rights
vested in the employee bargaining agency under section 156 shall
not be exercised for any purpose relating to the employer or
class of employers referred to in the regulation in the area to
which the regulation applies; and
"(c) any provincial
agreement to which the employee bargaining agency is a party that
bound the employer or employers in the class of employers
referred to in the regulation ceases to bind them in the area to
which the regulation applies.
"Abandonment of rights by
other means not precluded
"(4) This section shall not
be interpreted to preclude the abandonment of bargaining rights
by other means.
"(2) Section 160.1 of the
act, as enacted by subsection (1), is repealed on the day that is
one year after the day this section comes into force."
The Chair:
Any debate?
Mr
Christopherson: Yes.
The Chair:
Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: Well, by that clock, and assuming that's
what you're going by-
The Chair:
Yes. I should tell you that I've also got one request from Mr
Agostino to speak.
Mr
Christopherson: I know. I was just going to say, if
you'd allow me, Chair, that I will stop halfway through so that
my colleague gets at least half the time.
The Chair:
OK.
Mr
Christopherson: I wanted to begin by pointing out that
this amendment, regardless of what the government says is their
intent, holds the hammer over the heads of the construction
unions for one year. Now, one might say a government wouldn't
threaten anybody, but the only reason we've got Bill 69 on the
table is because the construction unions were threatened with the
removal of 1(4). Much to the denial of the parliamentary
assistant and minister at times during debate, that's the
reality. They were threatened. They were told, "If you don't come
to the bargaining table and find something acceptable to us and
the employers, we will remove 1(4)," effectively destroying the
construction unions as we know them in the modern day and taking
us to the nightmare that we've seen in Alberta.
This bill leaves that
threat, a worse threat if you will, over the heads of every
construction union labour leader, because at the stroke of a pen,
regardless of what the minister said, the minister today says-we
can't hold him accountable to his words legally and, secondly,
there could be a new minister tomorrow. A minister could come
along, if they wanted to take out retribution-and we know that
this is a bully government; they believe in retribution, they go
after people who speak out. They went after Jimmy Moffat in the
House the other day. God forbid anybody should speak out against
this government or face the wrath of this government. Again, the
fact that we've got Bill 69 in front of us is evidence of
that.
1620
Now we also have another
construction bill. The reason I raise this threat notion is
because this amendment allows the minister, at the stroke of a
pen, to eliminate the collective bargaining rights of tens of
thousands of workers-unprecedented. That threat remains for a
year. Never mind what the minister does a week from now or a
month from now. For a year, the minister has the power, the
absolute total power, to wipe out the bargaining rights of every
construction worker in the entire province.
It just so happens we've
got another labour bill in the House, Bill 139, which further
attacks the construction workers' rights, and we know that there
are changes coming under the Employment Standards Act. We don't
know what other nightmare bills you're dreaming up in the back
room these days that are going to face us over the next year.
So what does that say? It
tells these labour leaders, "You'd better keep quiet. You know,
you've been making an awful lot of noise coming down here and
saying bad things about me and picketing outside the Legislative
Assembly. We don't like that, and if you keep that up, just
remember what I can do to you."
So a construction bill is
in the House that takes away workers' rights. These
democratically elected leaders are speaking out against this on
behalf of their members, as they should, and now we've got the
minister who will have the power to totally eliminate, decimate,
wipe out, extinguish every bargaining right that their members
have, at the stroke of a pen. And you're going to tell me that's
not going to have some kind of a dampening effect on the ability
of these labour leaders to exercise their democratic rights in a
pluralistic society to speak out against the government of the
day? Especially when it's a government that, step after step, has
taken away the rights of workers?
Given the track record of
what this government has done, especially to the most vulnerable
in our society, there's no reason we shouldn't believe that you
would use that threat. Would you say it directly? No. And I don't
know that you put in writing your threat about subsection 1(4),
but it was real, that threat was there. I suggest to you that
passing this amendment and giving that kind of power to the
Minister of Labour in a Harris government is tantamount to saying
to the democratically elected labour leaders in the construction
unions across Ontario, "Don't you dare say a word or we will wipe
you out."
Surely to goodness in this
province, in this country, there's a law somewhere that says you
can't threaten workers and their democratically elected leaders
in that fashion. This is an obscene bill. I don't trust the
minister. I sure as hell don't trust the Premier. Any power
they've ever been given, they've exercised. Construction workers
have every right to be fearful and angered that this government
would bring in a bill that gives such sweeping powers,
undemocratic powers, to their Minister of Labour.
Mr
Agostino: To add in support of my colleague from
Hamilton West and what he has said today, this bill has not been
one of the finest hours for this government. You have shown your
nastiness. You've shown your ability to be bullies. You've shown
your ability to try and intimidate people. Frankly, you're
running this thing more like we would see somewhere in South or
Central America than here in Ontario with the democracy we
have.
First, you held a gun to
their head. The minister's come clean. He's admitted a number of
times now, "Yes, I threatened 1(4)." He said it in the Toronto
Star in June: "Either go along with this or it's 1(4)." You
pointed a gun to their head and you said, "Agree with me or I'm
going to blow your brains out." That was how you got negotiations
started in 1(4).
Then we have the incident
the other day in the House where the minister launched a
personal, bitter attack on Mr Moffat for daring to speak out.
That is not a democracy. That's what happens in Third World
countries. Personal, nasty attacks on individuals because they
challenge and opposed you is undemocratic at its core. You've
practised that to a fine art with this bill. This is 1(4) through
the back door. You didn't have the courage to take on-1(4)
through the front door would have basically brought labour
relations in this province to the point of explosion. So you
think you're going to be cute and you're going to try through
this amendment here to achieve the same thing. Frankly, this has
the full potential to be as bad as 1(4) would be through the
front door because it gives the minister sweeping powers to do
whatever he or she wants at any time to any contract.
The fundamentals of
bargaining, of collective agreements, you're ripping apart,
you're throwing out the window here and you're saying, "Trust
us," from a government that's made an art of beating up on labour
since the day it got elected to office. So no, we don't trust
you. No, we don't trust the minister. No, we don't trust the
Premier. We don't trust the government side of the House when it
comes to labour relations, because clearly, as this bill is
another prime example, what this is all about is rewards for your
friends. What this bill is all about is the Liberals for Harris,
the boys who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to your
campaign. Now they line up outside the Premier's door and they
get their just reward. This is what this bill is all about.
There was no need to
introduce this bill. We have labour peace. We have stability
right now in the construction industry. We have growth in the
construction industry. We have a province in which people are
working in construction. Why do you want to disrupt that? What
rationale was there, except payback to your friends who helped
you and raised a ton of money for you, and attend your $25,000-a-table dinners? No one
has given any explanation outside, "The request was made by the
Big Eight." The request was made by Geoff Smith, representing
Ellis-Don. That's what this bill is all about.
This is clearly another
attack on labour, on construction, on working men and women in
this province. And what is even more disgraceful than this bill
has been the way this government has approached this bill, the
way this government has threatened, intimidated, as I said
earlier. Basically, now you're going to have this carrot hanging
over their head. Now what you're saying is, for the next 12
months, "If you don't play ball with us, we've got the power to
go beyond even what the minister committed to in the House. We've
got the power to lock you all out. We've got the power to rip up
every single agreement across this province in civil and
non-civil trades." That is the power you're giving this minister
and this government, and you're saying, "Trust us." Frankly, with
your track record, you don't deserve be trusted. The labour
movement and the working men and women don't trust you. It's a
bad amendment to a bad bill. The honourable thing to do would be
to withdraw this whole damn thing and restore the peace that is
now there in labour relations.
1630
The Chair:
Pursuant to the orders of the House, I am now required to put the
bill to clause-by-clause consideration. We'll take the amendment,
section 5 of the bill, as moved by Mr Gill. All in favour?
Mr
Agostino: Recorded vote.
The Chair:
Recorded vote. We have to stand that down, apparently. We'll go
back to section 1.
Shall section 1 carry? All
in favour?
Mr
Christopherson: Is this the first formal vote you're
taking?
The Chair:
Yes, we're going to section 1.
Mr
Christopherson: Did you vote on the other amendment?
The Chair:
We're standing it down. We'll vote at the end.
Mr
Christopherson: Why can't we just vote on it now?
The Chair:
Because of the time allocation motion. We have to start from the
beginning, from scratch.
Mr
Christopherson: So we're not even going to get a chance
to register our opposition to this?
The Chair:
You will have a recorded vote, Mr Christopherson, but we have to
stand it down to the end.
Section 1: shall section 1
carry? All in favour?
Mr
Agostino: Recorded vote.
The Chair:
Recorded vote. We'll stand that down. Section 2: shall section 2
carry?
Mr
Christopherson: Recorded vote on all of them.
The Chair:
Recorded vote on all of them? Then we'll just go back to the
beginning. Section-
Mr
Christopherson: I'm sorry, point of order. There were
times when we tried to do this when we had a bill where we did
all agree and we wanted to move it along. I think you might have
even been in the chair at the time, Brenda. It seemed to me that
we couldn't stand down the votes and do them as just one vote at
the end. Am I thinking of something else?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I don't think it was time-allocated
maybe.
The Chair:
If I could just go through again the orders of the day, "Any
division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions
have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting
period allowed pursuant to standing order 127...."
Mr
Christopherson: So you're going to do what I requested
and have a vote on every one.
The Chair:
A vote on every one. So we'll start on section 1 again.
Section 1: shall section 1
carry?
Mr
Christopherson: Recorded vote.
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
Section 2: shall section 2 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
Section 3: shall section 3 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
Section 4: shall section 4 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
The Chair:
Section-
Mr
Christopherson: Whoa. You can't extinguish our rights
too, you know.
The Chair:
Opposed?
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Now we'll do the amendment
to section 5.
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 5, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Section 6: shall section 6
carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Section 7: shall section 7
carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Section 8: we have three
Liberal amendments.
Section 8, a Liberal
amendment on page 3. Recorded vote. All in favour of Liberal
amendment number 3?
AYES
Agostino,
Christopherson.
NAYS
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
The Chair:
That not having carried, Liberal amendments four and five are out
of order.
Shall section 8 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Section 9: shall section 9
carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Section 10: shall section
10 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
Section 10 carried. We'll go to section 11.
Section 11: shall section
11 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall the title of the bill
carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall Bill 69, as amended,
carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino,
Christopherson.
The Chair:
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House?
