31st Parliament, 1st Session

L031 - Tue 25 Oct 1977 / Mar 25 oct 1977

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


House in committee on Bill 22, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Chairman: We have the Act reprinted as amended by the standing resources development committee. Are there any comments or amendments? The member for Quinte.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Chairman, we have one amendment which we would like to propose, moved by myself and seconded by Mr. Mancini. It is an amendment to add a subsection 2 to section 125 of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before you place any amendment to section 3, I’d like to ask if there are any other members who wish to speak to any previous sections.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. O’Neil moves that section 125 of the Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding subsection 2 as follows: “Effective the 30th day of April, 1980, for the purposes of section 125(1) and sections 126 to 140, the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry referred to in clause e of section 106 shall be deemed to include the electrical power systems sector of the construction referred to in the said clause e, in addition to the said industrial, commercial and institutional sector.”

Has the member for Quinte any further comments?

Mr. O’Neil: No, Mr. Chairman; I think this has been discussed very fully in our hearings across the province, in the centres of Thunder Bay, London, Ottawa, Sudbury, and Toronto. I think the point has been made by our party as to our feelings that Ontario Hydro should come within the scope of this bill as of that date, April 30, 1980, which would give a fair amount of lead time to Ontario Hydro. As I say, I think enough comments have been made about it in standing committee.

Mr. Bounsall: We too would like very much to see Hydro covered in province-wide bargaining, and in the committee stage initially moved the same effective amendment as we have before us from the Liberal Party.

The minister then responded, I think, in a very positive way. She brought a proposal to the committee in which she proposed to establish an industrial inquiry commission, according to section 34 of the Labour Relations Act, to consider the extension of this bill into the electrical power system sector. If I could read out part of the terms of reference which the minister had in mind, they included “the feasibility of the merger of the electrical power system sector with the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.”

I think a very valid study could be done on that one single term of reference alone, because I think it was the feeling of all members of the committee, particularly hearing from contractor groups across the province, and from many of the union groups, that Hydro had to be included in this province-wide bargaining. This was partly because of the rate of pay which Hydro paid in the area in which they had a project, which tended to be the second highest rate in the province -- not the highest, but the second highest -- a rate which often disturbed the trade rates in the area and made it very difficult for other employers to keep or even to find tradesmen.

For Hydro to be paying the rate pursuant to the area, which would emerge as the local appendancy to a province-wide agreement, seems to us to be a step forward. There are other reasons why tradesmen, without having & higher rate of pay, would prefer to work on a Hydro project, one of them being the long-term work which they would get as opposed to maybe short-term work at various sites in the other markets. But there is no question in our minds that Hydro should be included, either now or eventually, and we certainly hope in the not too far distant future, in the province-wide bargaining with the rest of this sector.

The minister proposes an industrial inquiry commission which would thoroughly investigate the problems of making them part of this ICI sector. It goes on with a couple of other terms of reference: Part B, “The desirability of the retention of multi-trade bargaining as opposed to single-trade bargaining in the electrical power system sector”; and, finally, “the process and timing for such extension.”

The minister went on to propose in writing, and said in response to questioning, that this was no problem; the commission would be appointed not later than October 31 and it would report to the minister within three months. Both of those time frames -- when we would get this commission started and when it would have to report -- mean that we would have this report before us in a rather short time. In questioning, the minister said she has in mind some person who is very capable of being the commissioner of this inquiry commission and who presumably is available -- he or she -- to meet these sorts of deadlines. I would like to see, because it is such a complicated sector -- the whole construction industry is complicated; I must admit I liked being on this committee for the sole purpose of finding out more about the construction industry and how it operated. From the educational point of view it was well worth it.

This would allow a thorough investigation of Hydro and how Hydro could and should be operated. The only drawback, of course, is the power that Hydro seems to exert upon the cabinet. I can envisage a report from the commissioner coming in and saying, “Hydro should be included. Let’s do it now -- or whatever the date may be -- and do it under the following different conditions, which can be either accepted by both sides in the construction field or, if necessary, legislated.” I can see that coming forth and then, because of Hydro’s seeming influence on the cabinet, the bill that would do that or the urge to get them into that sector would never see the light of day. That is a concern, a lingering concern.

Mr. O’Neil: Why don’t you vote with us?

Mr. Bounsall: But as I said during consideration of the estimates, the Ministry of Labour’s sins, and they are manifold, are ones of omission and not ones of commission. If they go out of their way to meet the need in this way of taking this step -- and this commission, as I have no doubt, has to include them in some way in the province-wide bargaining -- then I feel it would be so compelling that they be included that even Hydro’s objections, if there are any, would not carry the cabinet in the way which I fear. The reasons for them to be included as turned up by this commission would be so compelling that the government would have to move on their inclusion.

I can see all sorts of areas in which this inquiry commission should look. The terms of reference as suggested tell me that those are broad enough to cover the entire field of the construction industry in which Hydro participates. The commission is able, from the terms of reference, to look into every corner and sector of that; including, I would think, in the construction field a look at Hydro’s system of cost-plus on all their projects rather than the tendering system. I would say to the commission that this does have some effect, I would think, upon the contracts reached, if not necessarily directly on the bargaining. This is also an area which the commission could quite fruitfully look into and come forward with some recommendations, because of the added costs to the province of their cost-plus system of arriving at the contracts on their construction sites.

I certainly don’t agree with the brief that Hydro presented to us outlining how they would be at a disadvantage with respect to being included under this bill. One of the arguments placed was that they must purchase construction material and equipment on the open market at the best price. They want that right. That simply says they want to use non-union materials, something which I don’t think Hydro should be allowed to do, particularly in light of the fact that the money saved there would be picayune compared to the money spent on their cost-plus arrangement of arriving at their agreements to build.

Their proposal was to set up a parallel structure, a bill of their own if you like, parallel to the powers here in this bill, with a single designated bargaining agency representing all employers of trades or crafts working in the electrical power system sector for province-wide, multi-employer bargaining. What they are really saying is set up some sort of procedure which forces the subcontractors with whom they have to deal to sit down and deal with them.

That’s a funny way of arriving at something which by their very subcontracting contracts they can achieve anyway. We surely don’t need a parallel structure simply to achieve the main point of what Hydro asked us to do. It is clear in my mind they should be included in a province-wide contract.

What I am interested in, however, is a qualified person looking into the ins and outs of exactly how they should be included and what differences, if any, there should be. They may turn up some significant differences. I have heard stories saying that they both do and don’t pay the extra bonuses for high level work which often occurs on Hydra projects in local areas.

I’m not sure which side to believe in this. If it is true, I can see where one of the recommendations would be to include them, but that this is a provision from which they should be exempted because of their particular type of project. In many areas the highest thing they would ever have in the whole area would be the Hydro project, if they were lucky or unlucky enough to have one there, whichever way you want to look at it.


For that reason, I support the commission inquiry and trust the ministry and the minister to appoint a well qualified person, the one they have in mind, to be the commissioner. I trust him in this and certainly would hope they would follow through in complete detail, in legislation if required, what that inquiry commissioner would recommend.

For that reason we have decided that the proposal by the minister is not just an interesting one but the proper way to proceed at this time with this bill. We would prefer to take the minister at her word, follow through this procedure as she has committed herself to do, and we will not support the amendment, one which we had moved in the first place but then withdrew as a result of the proposal put through by the minister.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that it was certainly a privilege for myself to serve on the standing resources development committee as the chairman. I wish to acknowledge the tremendous amount of co-operation we received from the deputy clerk of the House, who informed me on many different occasions of what my duties and responsibilities were as chairman.

I would like to say that I sat in the hearings and I heard every single brief that was presented. I sat in the committee and I heard management organization after management organization approach the committee and explain to us the need they felt of Ontario Hydro being included in this bill, and I totally support my colleague from Quinte in his amendment; I believe it’s necessary.

I would also like to say that we had support of the other opposition party until the different unions from Hydro sent telegrams. That’s the first time I realized we had lost the support of the other opposition party. All through the committee hearings all the members of the committee stated emphatically that Hydro should be included in this bill; it was just a matter of when would be the most appropriate time to have them brought in.

Mr. Kerrio: You don’t want to see a flip- flop, do you?

Mr. Mancini: No, I don’t.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you just get on with it and resign?

Mr. Mancini: It was decided before the very last meeting, on a general consensus of all of the committee members, that Hydro was to be included in this bill in April 1980. It is not right to say that we need this industrial inquiry commission to further study Hydro. My goodness, we’ve had a top-notch commissioner study, we’ve had Don Franks working on this. He’s very highly acclaimed. He has looked into Hydro and he says, on page 59 of the Franks brief, that the power sector is no different from the institutional and the commercial and the industrial sector. He recommended strongly to the minister --

Mr. Foulds: Is that Don Franks the actor, the singer?

Mr. Mancini: I can recall seeing a letter that Mr. Franks sent to you right after the Hydro people presented their briefs. I think he kind of mentioned that they came to the committee cap in hand to be treated special.

I have to say, in all honesty, when we have an organization as large as Hydro, an organization that has a long-term commitment of a multi-billion dollar program for the future and employs 10,000 construction workers, how can we ignore an agency this big? I say it’s special treatment for a government agency.

If anyone needed special consideration, it was the petro-chemical people from the Sarnia area whom my colleague, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy), represents. If anybody had a good setup which was working well and should not have been tampered with, it was those people in Sarnia. But due to the fact that we needed province-wide, single-trade bargaining, we had to include them.

Now we have a government agency which has caused this government all kinds of problems in other areas, the same government agency that employs more than 10,000 people, which is the biggest contractor in the province, and which has a multi-billion dollar program underway; and they’re going to be excluded. We’re going to have this industrial inquiry commission to study whether they should be in or not.

I say let’s put them in now, for 1980, and work for two years on how would be best to bring them in. That is the answer to our problem.

Mr. Warner: You’ve got one supporter.

Mr. Reid: Don’t wait for 1980, do it now.

Mr. Mancini: Members of the Conservative Party --

Mr. Foulds: There’s going to be an outage on your mike pretty soon, you know.

Mr. Mancini: -- strongly recommended it until the last day or two and they even bandied around the date 1980. The member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) was one of the strongest supporters of 1980.

Mr. Eaton: Oh, no.

Mr. Mancini: He certainly was. He was a strong supporter of 1980.

Mr. S. Smith: No; he’s 1984, isn’t he?

Mr. Foulds: It’s a very good year, I’ll look forward to it.

Mr. Mancini: Now all of a sudden there are regulations for the rest of Ontario but there’s no regulation for a government agency. I expected the support of the third party, and I’m disappointed that we don’t have it.

I dare say that if this amendment is not passed now, Hydro will never be brought in under this bill, and I’m sure that’s what they want. It shows Hydro’s power in the cabinet. Unfortunately, many of the people in Ontario are going to have to learn to work together, but a large, powerful government agency does not.

Mr. Ruston: Never, until we’re elected.

Mr. Mancini: First priority.

Mr. Warner: Lake Ontario will freeze over.

Mr. Foulds: We’ll be there before you are.

Mr. Warner: You’re half-way in the Tory bag now, for heaven’s sakes.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Kerrio: The next move for you is right out the door.

Mr. Foulds: Can you get a Hydro bus?

Mr. Kerrio: You’re headed in the right direction.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Essex South has the floor.

Mr. Mancini: I’d just like to say that at least 50 per cent of the union people and at least 90 per cent of the management people who came before our committee wanted Hydro included. I dare say there are probably more out there, but they are afraid to upset the bill and are therefore keeping quiet.

Also I would like to say that I really didn’t appreciate the manner in which Hydro came to present their brief. It was typical scare tactics. “If you touch us, there’ll be no power. If you touch us, there’ll be extra cost to the taxpayer.” Do you know just over a lunch hour they sent us an estimate of $25 million as what it would cost to bring them in right now?

Mr. Mackenzie: That was an expensive lunch.

Mr. Mancini: Don’t you think that Don Franks, the commissioner, could have figured that out?

Mr. Foulds: He’s slumping in his seat with embarrassment.

Mr. Mancini: Don’t you think that a man who had done such a fine job with his report could have figured that out? I think the minister has to answer a very serious question. How can she not support the recommendation of Don Franks?

Mr. Kerrio: Hydro’s a sacred cow.

Mr. Pope: Or a sacrificial lamb.

Mr. Kerrio: Bigger than this Legislature.

Mr. Mancini: I’ll just wrap up by saying that our party is going to support the inclusion of Hydro; we want to treat all of the government agencies the same way that we treat the private enterprise people.

Mr. Foulds: That badly?

Mr. Mancini: I think Hydro should be included in this bill and I would hope that members of the third party would change their minds. Thank you.

Mr. Mackenzie: I’m delighted to have the Liberal member place his priorities so squarely before the House. He’s now supporting this particular amendment because only 50 per cent of the union but 90 per cent of the management people want the amendment in there. It’s pretty clear to whom they listen and who carries the weight.

Mr. S. Smith: Sharp is the word for it.

Mr. Mackenzie: The other thing that’s very interesting too -- and the Liberal leader should follow this a little bit closely -- is that one of the arguments used in committee, which quite frankly I’m not sure I’d buy --

Mr. Mancini: You supported it until the last two days.

Mr. Mackenzie: -- was the cost of $25 million. The member who just finished speaking said there’s no way of knowing, or at least that Hydro was wrong with these figures. They may be wrong, the commission may be one way to find out; but let me tell you I thought, following the last election campaign and the comments I’ve heard in this House, that the Liberals were supposed to be interested in whether or not we saved the people $25 million. Obviously it’s not a major concern when it comes to an issue like this.

Mr. S. Smith: How come you didn’t think of it when you proposed the same amendment?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Mackenzie: It may be, but the instant expert on labour, the leader of the Liberal Party, should stop and realize --

Mr. Ruston: You are not getting home to him.

Mr. Mackenzie: One doesn’t get home to him in any way, it doesn’t go in. It’s in one ear and out the other. He should stop and realize that the amendment in committee was first moved by my colleague, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall). We are perfectly willing to listen to arguments, and in this case, there was at least some validity in the arguments.

Mr. S. Smith: Why didn’t he think of the $25 million then?

Mr. Mackenzie: It was you people who made that argument. All of a sudden $25 million doesn’t count. I can’t understand you.

Mr. S. Smith: Why didn’t the member for Windsor-Sandwich think of that argument?

Mr. Bounsall: We’re willing to be convinced by facts.

Mr. Mackenzie: The member for Quinte said: “Why don’t we vote for it?” This Hydro deal is a Liberal issue.

Mr. Ruston: You want to believe it is.

Mr. Mackenzie: It’s not a union issue. This particular bill is supposed to be aimed at bringing some order into the construction industry; obviously it doesn’t matter a dam to these people.

Mr. S. Smith: Nor does it to the member for Windsor-Sandwich, nor to Franks.

Mr. O’Neil: That must have been a pretty good lunch you had.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: Let me give you a couple of examples. Obviously, it bothers them to have the truth come out. In the same committee hearings the member who just interjected a few minutes ago and said: “Why don’t we vote for it?” -- the member for Quinte moved two amendments, not major ones but of some import to the bill. In his comments in committee he said he was moving the amendments because he had been asked by Mr. Koskie to move them.

Mr. O’Neil: Who? I didn’t propose --

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Koskie. Those were union amendments. Let me tell you something, when the arguments were raised by the minister in that committee -- and there was some validity to the arguments -- what did he do? He withdrew them. There was no vote forced on those particular amendments. They’re the ones who changed “may” to “shall”; if you remember. When he says, why don’t we vote for them, why doesn’t he know what he’s talking about?

I’m not at all entirely sold on the arguments we’ve had from the government, but I think they’re worth looking at. I think we might find out the costs and the problems with multi-trade bargaining and a number of other things that are involved in the suggestion about Hydro. The intent of this bill is to bring about, or the reason we’re given for the bill, some order in the construction industry.

Mr. Kerrio: Isn’t Hydro in construction?

Mr. Mackenzie: If it’s to bring about some order in the construction industry, then you’re looking for a position that meets some general agreement.

Mr. Worton: That’s normal.

Mr. Mackenzie: The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) also made the comment about receiving some wires from Hydro and Hydro unions. I’ve never received a wire from Hydro or a Hydro union since I’ve been in this House. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, one of the things we did check -- and I’ll make no apologies for it -- was the union position in this particular issue? Do you know what we found? Very clearly, there is no unanimity; the only thing the member for Essex South is right about is that it’s a 50-50 split.

Mr. Reid: That means you have no position then, if they don’t tell you what to do.


Mr. Mackenzie: It’s a 50-50 split. The only really strong arguments I heard -- well apart from the anti-Hydro argument, the arguments weren’t that strong. There were arguments for and against, even on management’s side.

Mr. Ruston: Louder, Bob.

Mr. Reid: There always are positions. That’s what you don’t understand. In every issue, there are arguments for and against.

Mr. Mackenzie: I think I do understand and I don’t think the Liberals understand. I think what’s happened here --


Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Rainy River contain himself please?

Mr. Reid: How can you expect me to contain myself listening to this?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Mackenzie: If we are interested in an amendment that might contribute to a bill before the House, that might bring some stability and peace and order to the construction industry and the bargaining that goes on there, then you are not going to do it with a position that’s at best 50-50 right off the bat, with all kinds of strong feelings on it. When a suggestion is made that we take an immediate position --

Mr. Reid: You mean you are afraid to take a position unless the union tells you.

Mr. Foulds: You are really fascist, a Liberal Labour member.

Mr. Mackenzie: When it comes to an immediate position --


Mr. Chairman: Order.

An hon. member: What a bunch of nonsense.

Mr. S. Smith: He says jump, and you ask how high. Even then it has to be 90 per cent of the union.

Mr. Mackenzie: What’s bothering the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: What’s bothering you?

Mr. S. Smith: You are.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am glad we have got through to you.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have been waiting for two years for some understanding of the labour movement in the Liberal caucus. They woo them like heck, but they don’t understand them.

Mr. Reid: Your understanding is if it is 50-50 you don’t take a position.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the member for Hamilton East address his comments to the Chair?

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to. You must forgive me, I am being abused and the interjections here are getting through to me -- unreasoned interjections from the party on my right, the far right.

I would simply say that what we have here is an amendment that gives us a chance to get out and ask some specific questions as to the effect of multi-trade bargaining, which is what we have right now in Hydro, and the other party should understand that. It’s not a single-trade bargaining situation. We can learn what, if anything, it’s going to cost. I have grave reservations about the figures the government threw at us as to cost, but I would like to know what it is going to cost and what kind of a time frame and arrangements can be made in terms of bringing Hydro in, if indeed it should be brought in; we have that chance.

Mr. Mancini: You will never have a chance.

Mr. Mackenzie: Maybe before that commission we can also take a look at the cost-plus practices and some other things that have bothered people for a long time about Hydro, and I doubt very much if Hydro’s too happy about being put up to that kind of scrutiny again. When we have that kind of an assessment, then we still get another crack at it here in the House. That, to me, makes eminent sense. I want to be very, very frank with some members of this House, I don’t think we have always got the answers and we may on occasion --

Mr. Reid: What? I don’t believe I am hearing that from a socialist.

Mr. Mackenzie: I admit that I am a democratic socialist too, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Campbell: Do you not have anything useful to do?

Mr. Mackenzie: We may on occasion --

Mr. Reid: By God, we will have to have that framed. That is the first honest thing I have heard.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, would you please control your colleagues?

Mr. Chairman: Order, order. Would the member for Rainy River please continue drinking his water?

Mr. Reid: It is almost like Moses getting the tablets. A socialist saying he doesn’t have all the answers.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, he doesn’t even know the questions.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: We may on occasion, Mr. Chairman, in our party, have the wrong answers or even flop as has been suggested, but one of the things that we rarely do, we leave that to the party on my right, is flip-flop on an issue. Thank you.

Mr. Kerrio: You have broken the all-time record.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Middlesex.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in this debate very briefly, because I think we went through this very thoroughly in committee. We have heard all this discussion before, but I do want to draw to the attention of the House the remarks made by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) which described my position as being that of strongly supporting 1980. I put that suggestion forth as a compromise on the ridiculous position his party was taking of trying to force Hydro in by April of next year --

Mr. Kerrio: That makes a lot of sense, that is sensible.

Mr. Eaton: -- considering none of the consequences that could take place because of it. I think we have a good proposal here from the minister. In committee we all agreed that it was a good proposal. We agreed, and you brought the report to the House as chairman of that committee. I feel the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) and the Liberal Party are just trying to use Hydro as a whipping boy, no matter what the case may be.

Mr. Kerrio: They’re big enough to look after themselves.

Mr. Eaton: I think if we can take a practical look at it through the commission, with some in-depth study, then we can get a report that gives us some proper direction, I know that you said you listened to every brief and the presentations of all the groups very carefully. I just want to remind you that when that next amendment comes in, on compulsory co-ordinating agencies, you remember what many of those employee groups were saying to you, don’t just listen to what the former member for Sarnia has told you about the Sarnia group. I think this amendment they have put forth should be defeated, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Blundy: I am rising to speak in support of the amendment and I am going to reiterate the statements that have been made to me by the people in the Sarnia area, both trades union people and contractors. They have insisted to me that Hydro should be included.

This is not just something they have pulled out of the sky, We, in Sarnia, are an area in which we have experienced massive building programs over the last 10 or 15 years, an area where we are used to dealing with multi-million dollar contracts and international contractors. In Sarnia we have experience with both Hydro and these private contractors. We have, in the Lambton Generating Station, one of the largest coal-fired generating stations in Ontario, so we know how both these groups are working.

I can tell you that Ontario Hydro, when building the generating station, wore drawing labour from the same pool as any other contractor, the same labour pool; so there are no differences.

The member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), is talking about the former member for Sarnia, Mr. Bullbrook. The former member for Sarnia is just as convinced as I am that Hydro should be included.

There is no real reason why. You mentioned that it is just another way to look into Hydro affairs, investigate Hydro. There are many, many ways in which Hydro should be investigated, but not necessarily in this way as far as I am concerned.

Another thing I want to mention is this $25 million people are talking about that would be extra costs accruing to Hydro if it were included in this bill. I think that is a lot of hogwash. We have experienced both types of construction in the Sarnia area and I can tell you -- and I am not speaking of wages, I am speaking of allowances and benefits, which were much more generous as far as Hydro’s projects were concerned than on Petrosar, Union Carbide or Shell Canada.

I really don’t see any reason to hold up this spectre of an additional amount of $25 million, because this party is not wanting to saddle the province of Ontario with $25 million on any thing based on such flimsy excuses as have been suggested here tonight.

To sum up my few words, I can tell you categorically that both the trades people in the Sarnia area and the contractors in the Sarnia area want Hydro included in this bill. They are the people who have experienced both kinds of building and know what they are talking about. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Pope: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand the issue before this House, it is a problem relating to how the bargaining carried on by Ontario Hydro in the province of Ontario relates to the rest of the bargaining in the construction industry. My understanding, based on information that has been received by the standing resources development committee, is that Hydra has entered into collective agreements with the Allied Construction Council, composed of certain unions whose members are employed on Hydro projects; and that council represents the international unions of the boilermakers, cement masons, bridge and structural iron workers, labourers, machinists, operating engineers, painters, teamsters and carpenters. Other internationals can, of course, join the Allied Construction Council; for example, bricklayers and sheet metal workers.

These agreements are province-wide and cover all construction work on Hydro projects, the Hydro employees and the employees of contractors and subcontractors. The agreements provide that wages and benefits on the Hydro projects will be those negotiated locally by the locals of the affiliated unions of the internationals, with certain important exceptions; for instance, premium pay on certain shifts, hours of work, travel time, payment for room and board.

The agreements permit the use of composite crews, composed of the members of several trades, permitting the release of the skilled tradesman from performing unskilled work. The agreements do not contain restrictive provisions regarding the handling of materials by each trade in respect of its own materials, the prohibiting of the use of non-union materials, limits upon the number of journeymen per foreman, limiting the work force to members of affiliated unions only, and extra pay for work in certain places.

I must say that the purpose, as I understood it. and as has been discussed by all parties which have made representations to the committee, was to provide for single trade bargaining in the construction industry, or certain segments of it. What we have here is a proposed, amendment which will destroy that concept.

Why will it destroy that concept, and is there another concept that is more adequate? Surely that is the purpose for the formation of the commission, to study all the implications? We have an Act designed to alleviate some of the collective bargaining problems in the construction industry that all parties have admitted to; unions and employers alike have admitted there are problems, and what we have is an amendment that, for the sake of getting at Hydro, will destroy that concept by putting another concept completely foreign to that concept into the bill.

I ask you, what does in accomplish? Does it bring some sort of organization to the collective bargaining processes in the construction industry with respect to the power systems sector? I would submit it does not. What it does is destroy an existing collective bargaining process in the power system. And for what reason? To get Hydro.

Surely if there is a concern by Her Majesty’s loyal opposition with respect to the costs of Hydro, which has been voiced most capably by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) in this House with respect to certain projects, then perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will also capably demonstrate to this House how we can refuse to deal with the possible cost consequences of destroying this collective bargaining relationship.

Mr. Kerrio: Let them be competitive. They are not competitive.

Mr. Pope: How can the two concerns be juxtaposed with any form of consistency? They aren’t juxtaposed and they are not consistent, and that is the entire problem with this amendment that has been proposed by the Liberal Party and the opposition.

I say to you that if we are to have --

Mr. Warner: That’s the problem with the Liberal Party -- they are juxtaposed and inconsistent.

Mr. Pope: That’s right. If we are going to carry on to get some sort of proper bargaining system in the construction industry, and if we are to encourage a continuation of multi-trade collective bargaining in the power systems sector in order that both workers and employers can benefit from it, then I say that this amendment should be defeated. I cannot for the life of me understand why this proposal has been put forward by the opposition.

They have yet to explain how they’re going to amend all the other provisions of the bill to avoid a conflict between single-trade collective bargaining province-wide, and multi-trade collective bargaining province-wide.

Are they willing to destroy a system that, from all the evidence that is available to us, has worked, for the sake of their own beliefs that Hydro by some means is not protecting the economic interests of the province? Are they prepared to do that irrespective of the cost to the province? The suggestion I have from the members for the opposition is that they are; they’re prepared to sacrifice a potential loss to the people of this province for the sake of getting at Hydro.

For that reason I cannot support the amendment. I think my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has put it quite well, that there may be some facts that have to be gone into deeper.


Mr. Mackenzie: Be careful, I might reverse my position.

Mr. Pope: They will be dealt with deeper. We will have an examination of the cost saving or lack of cost saving based on the multi-trade collective bargaining system province-wide that Hydro presently has.

However, to make a decision and propose an amendment on the basis of a lack of information seems to me to be illogical and irresponsible for an opposition party. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment proposed by our party, and I have very good reason to. There are some in this Legislature who would suggest that the free enterprise system is ill and failing in its responsibility in this country.

Mr. McClellan: Trudeau said that.


Mr. Kerrio: It’s federal, it is socialist, but it surprises me that it is conservative.


Mr. Kerrio: I would say this, with respect, to the minister --

Mr. Warner: Who said free enterprise is free?

Mr. Mackenzie: Don’t insult us with Trudeau.

Mr. Kerrio: -- that having been there, having treated them fairly, and having some notion of what is going about here, I say that in a fair democratic process if we are going to allow Hydro to get into the construction business, which is what it is doing, then it should play the game according to the rules that all the rest of us have to play the game by. The moment you exclude Hydro and make it some kind of sacred cow in this particular issue, you are putting private enterprise at a distinct disadvantage.

There is no recourse for it. Hydro has been for many years nearly unreachable from the floor of this Legislature. It has gone about its business doing what it will. I say in this particular instance, if it wants to be in the construction business let it play the game by the same rules as apply to the rest of us who are in the construction industry. Let’s not allow it a position that is not fair and not competitive.

I might agree that in the short run the $25 million is objective because of the better bargaining position that Hydro gets from the trade union, but remember, it is dealing with the same workers that the construction industry is dealing with. Hydro hasn’t proven that its top management is that much better that it can take these same people and do the job at a better price. Hydro is suggesting that it wants an advantage. If we are going to pursue that premise that the free enterprise system is worth saving, is worth pursuing, trade union people have their methods of protecting themselves, where does this put the individual who would compete with Hydro? I say Hydro is not competitive. I say there is hardly any government body that is competitive with true free enterprise, and I tell you again, it is not fair to exclude Hydro in this particular bill. You are allowing it to play the game by a different set of rules.

Mr. Eaton: No matter what the cost.

Mr. Breaugh: Is that what the Lummus Corporation --


Mr. Kerrio: That is the only way it can play the game.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to this amendment and there are quite a few reasons for that.

Mr. Kerrio: Let’s make a deal.

Mr. Charlton: Let’s make a deal?

Mr. Breaugh: No, this is not the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Can I ask the member for Niagara Falls, who has just had the floor, to allow the nest speaker to continue?

Mr. Charlton: One of the things our Liberal friends down here seem to be forgetting is that one of the arguments that was raised originally in committee -- about not including Hydro next April, and the ultimate suggestion that it should be in April, 1980 -- was that perhaps there were some problems that we didn’t know about and perhaps there were some differences in the case of Hydro. That question led us away from the original amendment that I think both parties were prepared to move to include Hydro immediately.

One of the things that the Liberals are forgetting now is that by moving theft amendment for April 30, 1980, they are in fact tying Hydro to two and a half years from now. The commission that the minister has agreed to set up and have report will in fact be reporting early enough that if this Legislature so desires, Hydro could actually be included next April or in April 1979 if the commission and this Legislature find that that is reasonable and useful.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s a cop-out.

Mr. Mackenzie: Just don’t flip-flop before then, fellows.

Mr. Kerrio: You are the experts.

Mr. Charlton: The problems in. the Hydro sector, the problems of multi-trade bargaining and the other problems that Hydro has declared -- the problems of money and so on -- at this point we don’t know all the answers to those problems. We must have a look at them. A little earlier in the debate, in response to a comment from my colleague the member for Hamilton East when he mentioned seeking a little bit of peace and so on in the construction industry, one of the members from the far end of this side yelled, “Why not include Hydro? It’s construction, isn’t it?”

Mr. Kerrio: That’s right.

Mr. Charlton: Well, where were the Liberals and the members of the Liberal caucus who were members of that committee when we moved to include the residential sector? They didn’t support it.

Mr. Nixon: But you are excluding Hydro, aren’t you?


Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: The NDP and the Tories are still bowing down to the sacred cow, always Hydro.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Will the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk please allow the speaker to continue?

Mr. Charlton: The Liberals are accusing us of positions that they themselves are taking all of the time. And the reasons they take those positions are the same reasons for which we take ours: we happen to think them through and decide what is best in light of the circumstances.

Mr. Nixon: You are in bed with the Tories.

Mr. Warner: If you keep yelling, we’ll think it’s one of your caucus meetings.

An hon. member: Do you want to see the rest of the amendments?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: You know when you are on a weak footing.

Mr. Charlton: There was a suggestion also from that end of the floor that if there was a reason to exempt anybody from the bill, the situation in Sarnia was that reason. I would like to suggest to this House that, if anything, the situation in Sarnia and the kinds of problems that the Sarnia area has caused for the construction industry, both management and labour, in the rest of the province, is one of the very real reasons why this bill is here in the first place.

Mr. Davidson: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think it’s necessary for me to go into too much detail with regard to the position of our party relating to the amendment that has been made, because it has been quite adequately done by the members for Hamilton East, Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) and Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), but I would like to say a few things.

I didn’t have the opportunity, as most of the members of the committee had, to tour the province and to listen to all of the briefs that had been presented, because I substituted on that committee only for the clause-by-clause debate. There has been some discussion from the right side of myself --

Mr. Nixon: The correct side.

Mr. Davidson: -- that we are somehow or other flip-flopping from a position that we had taken during the course of the discussions that were held during that clause-by-clause debate.

Mr. Nixon: Precisely.

Mr. Davidson: I want to make it perfectly clear once again that I do not believe there is any member who sat on that committee who did not feel that Hydro should be included in the bill.

Mr. O’Neil: Right. You’re right.

Mr. Kerrio: Hear, hear. Right again.

Mr. Davidson: As a matter of fact, I will point out once again that the original amendment to have it included was made by the New Democratic Party. But --

Mr. Nixon: Flip-flop.

Mr. Mancini: However --

Mr. S. Smith: With the passage of time --

Mr. Nixon: Elie, how warm it is in that bed.

Mr. Davidson: But also I think when you are dealing with legislation here in the province of Ontario -- and it is supposedly a responsibility of every member of this House to try to bring forward the best possible legislation for the conditions under which we are trying to create an atmosphere --

Mr. Nixon: And give Hydro what they want.

Mr. Davidson: -- that you also have to listen to some of the things that the government says, because sometimes the government is not always wrong.

Mr. Lane: Right on.

Mr. S. Smith: Is that right, Bette?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, it is in triple negative.

Mr. Davidson: Granted, it’s wrong most of the time but not all of the time.

Mr. Mancini: This is the new coalition.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Davidson: In fact, they brought forward to this committee a proposal that I am not even sure the Liberal Party expected that they would bring, because they are much closer to them than we are --

Mr. Nixon: Wait until the UAW hears about this, Breaugh.

Mr. Davidson: And I can assure you that we, as a party, did not expect that type of proposal would be brought forward by the government. But, in fact, it was.

Mr. Mancini: I wouldn’t want your job, Mike.

Mr. Davidson: It gave us, as a committee representing the New Democratic Party, an opportunity to review again our position.

Mr. Nixon: And change it.

Mr. Davidson: Part of our position resulted from some of the very things that the Liberal people within that committee had been saying themselves, not only within committee but that the Liberal leader himself has been haranguing the government about, that other members of the Liberal Party have been haranguing the government about; and that was the astronomical cost of Hydro to the consumer in this province.

Mr. Mancini: I am glad you know we are the opposition.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Yakabuski: You can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Davidson: There are several things that apparently they have forgotten since they have been doing all of this. What this inquiry will do, if nothing else, is in fact point out to us if there will be an increased cost to the consumer as a result of including Hydro in this legislation. If in fact there is, is the Liberal Party then going to continue to harangue on Hydro? Based on the additional $25 million, or even if it’s $5 million, I couldn’t care less, are the Liberals going to stand up and argue about that?

Mr. Nixon: Twenty-five or five?

Mr. Bradley: A flip-flop.

Mr. Davidson: And if as a result of their haranguing Hydro or this Legislature cuts back some of Hydro’s expenditures, are the Liberals then going to be proud of the fact that as a result of their haranguing perhaps some of these very construction people we are talking about will be laid off of the very jobs that they might have had?

Mr. .S. Smith: That is the most convoluted piece of reasoning I have ever heard.

Mr. Davidson: These are some of the things this inquiry will bring forward, and these are some of the things that perhaps you people should be taking a look at. We understand that you have a bag on about Hydro. We understand that’s the big thing in your real world today.

Mr. Nixon: Lots of luck explaining that, lots of luck explaining that to the taxpayers.

Mr. Davidson: We understand that probably you did not look beyond your own nose when you looked at the proposed inquiry that was put forward.

Mr. S. Smith: It was yours.

Mr. Davidson: I can fully understand that; and I can fully understand your position, because as I said earlier I don’t think there’s one party in this House that disagrees that Hydro should be included. But let’s get the facts first; and this Legislature then has as much right to have them included later as it has to have them in now and then taken out later. Let’s check what’s happening before we make the move.

Mr. Lane: Right on, right on.

Mr. Nixon: Let it be known that the main applause comes from the Conservatives for that NDP speech.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there’s any doubt that there’s significant rationale for the inclusion of Hydro, one of the major industrial builders within this province, in an Act similar to this or the same as this. But it has been said that the bill was developed ignoring the recommendations of the Franks report. I should like to remind the members of this House that indeed somewhat like the elephant, this bill has been two years in gestation. There is at this point a degree of urgency in the passing of the bill.

Mr. Mancini: That’s because you kept withdrawing it.

Mr. S. Smith: You have had two years for the Hydro inquiry, why didn’t you do it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is one bill that I feel should be brought into enactment as soon as possible, in order to proceed with the necessary methods to ensure that by this April there will be the mechanisms in place to permit both the trade unions and the employers to attempt to provide some peace and some order within the construction industry.

Mr. Nixon: We were ready to do it a year ago.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We were also ready to do it a year ago and it was not possible to proceed at that time.

However, we have not ignored the Franks report. It has been mentioned that the Franks report was favourable to the inclusion of the electrical power system segment in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, from which it is now separated. A fair reading of that part of Mr. Franks’ report, Mr. Chairman, would disclose that what Mr. Franks was actually putting forth were the views of some representatives of the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and others regarding the number of the sector.

On page 73 of Mr. Frank’s report, he deals with upsetting projects and points out, I think quite clearly, that these require a special group to deal with associations, and that the provincial agreements would have to include appendices dealing specifically with such projects. We have looked specifically at the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, because this was the one area in which there was a great measure of agreement between employers and employees about the route which should be followed in order to bring the kind of harmonious situation that we would hope to see within the construction industry. There has never been, I think, in the history of the development of any bill in this province, the kind of co-operation and the kind of mutual support which we have found in the development of Bill 22.


Although I recognize the rationale for the inclusion of Hydro, I would put it to this House that indeed it would be entirely disruptive to the passage of this bill to include any specific date at this time for the inclusion of Hydro. Therefore, in light of the comments that were made within the clause-by-clause discussions of Bill 22 by the committee, I did propose that we would appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner to examine the feasibility, the methods, the potential costs, the difficulties and the method by which to bring Hydro into this bill or into a similar bill; and that we would do it within a very short period of time, we are prepared to do so.

I would therefore ask the members of this House to defeat the amendment which has been proposed by the official opposition.

Mr. O’Neil: I have a few closing remarks in regard to some of the statements that were made by some of the members of the third party, and also by the minister.

Maybe we should let it be known that both of these parties are supporting Hydro in this particular case. I must say I think the members here who were not members of this committee should be aware of the fact that Ontario Hydro was given a chance to present a brief when this committee met in the city of Toronto. A brief was presented by them, and I know that they were well aware of some of the comments that were made across this province by some of the employers and some of the labour unions.

I think when that brief was given to this committee in Toronto it should have been a stronger brief, in light of their knowing some of the arguments to have Ontario Hydro included.

Things seemed to change around a bit, I recall, on the last two or three days of the committee meetings here in Toronto when Ontario Hydro was present at the clause-by-clause discussion. I know that our party members were invited out to lunch with the Deputy Minister of Labour and we were lobbied to see whether or not we would change our mind and go along with excluding Hydro altogether and going for this inquiry.

Mr. Nixon: The NDP must have had a better lunch.

Mr. O’Neil: We didn’t go along with it. Mind you, the NDP were treated at dinner that night. It must have been a lot better dinner than it was lunch --

Mr. Mackenzie: You got short-changed.

Mr. O’Neil: -- because when they came back they were for excluding Hydro and going for this inquiry.

Mr. Reid: It is amazing what a dinner will do.

Mr. Mancini: That’s what you call a free lunch.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s no free lunch, that’s what it costs to support you.

Mr. O’Neil: I must say with regard to the inquiry that has been suggested by the minister -- and I think she is possibly sincere in the setting up of this inquiry -- what we as a party are afraid of is that in the past there have been too many inquiries that have been set up. We haven’t heard back from them, or if we have heard back from them the results have not been brought before this Legislature, or in other words acted upon. It is our fear as I say, if this inquiry is set up at the early date which she has promised, that we may not get it as soon as possible and we may not be able to bring about the changes in this bill which we would like to see.

It was our proposal, I believe, or it may have been a proposal of one of the other parties, that if Ontario Hydro was included as of the end of April, 1980, and if the inquiry brought in evidence that substantiated their claim that it was going to cost the province more to have Ontario Hydro included, then at that time the bill could be brought back before this Legislature, the changes could be made and Ontario Hydro could be excluded or a specific date set for inclusion; that was our feeling on that particular matter.

Mr. Nixon: What could be more reasonable than that? We are going to have a balanced budget, almost, by then.

Mr. O’Neil: We have been accused --

Mr. Eaton: That would disappoint you, wouldn’t it?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: We won’t have to worry about you people bringing it in.

Mr. Nixon: You won’t be there. You will be out selling white beans.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Will the members of the House please allow the member for Quinte to continue?

Mr. O’Neil: We don’t really believe, as has been suggested by some of the other members, that by including Ontario Hydro in this as of April 30, 1980, we will destroy the bargaining system.

Mr. Nixon: Of course not.

Mr. O’Neil: We figure that we will tighten up on the bargaining system.

Mr. Mancini: And a number of other things.

Mr. O’Neil: We know that in this Legislature we have had discussions just over the last week on the overspending, in millions of dollars, by Ontario Hydro on some of its projects. We are for tightening up the bargaining system and the cost that Ontario Hydro is incurring for the people in this province.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why make the workers pay?

Mr. Samis: What are you insinuating?

Mr. Mackenzie: Why tighten up on the bargaining?

Mr. O’Neil: I think it was the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) who said: “They flipped over there, and you fellows flopped”; and I think that’s very true.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Would the member please ignore the interjections and continue?

Mr. O’Neil: I’m trying, Mr. Chairman, I’m trying very hard.

One of our members mentioned the chairman. I think the chairman did an excellent job during these hearings across the province and was very non-partisan. It’s a pleasure to hear him tonight and have him say what he felt during those hearings, and yet he held back from saying them.

Again, too, it was mentioned by the chairman of the committee that we were faced over the lunch hour with a cost of $25 million which was thrown at us by Hydro. We contend, in the Liberal Party, that that cost could have been in savings if we include Ontario Hydro and go along with this amendment. So the amendment stands as far as we are concerned.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All in favour of Mr. O’Neil’s amendment please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In the opinion of the Chair the “nays” have it.

Shall this vote be stacked?


Are there any further comments on this bill? The member for Quinte.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Chairman, to save a bit of time, the next amendment that we will have will be the deletion of sections 137 to 140 of the Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall sections 126 to 136, inclusive, as set out in section 3 of the bill, carry?

Mr. Mackenzie: No, I have some comments on section 130 of the Act.

We moved an amendment in committee which I think it is worth mentioning. We did manage to achieve support on this one. I think it was the only one we got support on and that we could carry in committee.

You will notice in the revised bill the words underlined, “subject to the ratification procedures of employee bargaining agency.” The bill, without that, simply said, and it may have been legitimate but it worried us, “shall vest in the employee bargaining agency, but only for the purposes of conducting bargaining and concluding a provincial agreement.”

The argument was made by the ministry that, obviously, it would be subject to ratification of the trade that was involved. That did not satisfy us. We felt we had to make it very clear, because one of the concerns expressed out in the province was whether or not that ratification was going to go back through the normal procedures of the trade, since there are a variety of different ratification procedures used in the construction industry. We asked for the amendment, and I’m happy to say that particular amendment has been added to the bill and those are the underlying words in section 130.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further comment from members on section 3 of the bill?

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I rise in connection with section 133 of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill, not with an amendment, but a comment that in committee this was one section on which I moved an amendment very similar in intent to the amendment that was just spoken on by the member for Hamilton East, in the sense that we wanted to make it clear in the bill, as clear as we can to anyone reading it, what was expected and anticipated.

The member for Hamilton East mentioned that we had moved the amendment, which was carried, that we indicate somewhere in the bill that we expected a ratification vote to be taken on the provincial contract reached by the constituent local groups that form that particular bargaining group, even if the decision of that particular trade might be, in terms of ratifying, to pass a resolution letting its negotiating and bargaining committee conclude the agreement without referral back. That also is one of the ways of ratifying.

We wanted to make this clear, because of the concerns brought to us across the province by both management and labour groups about the local appendices, and how much would be included in the local appendices and would their local particular differences be recognized in a province-wide agreement, which is, of course, anticipated but not mentioned at all in the bill. This was the appropriate place to make a reference to the fact that there would be local appendices and that we expected local appendices, which would maybe be quite large at the beginning and disappear slowly with time to what would be, in most cases, one agreement covering the entire province; but which none the less, in any particular trade may, for example, to take into account the particular differences in camp type construction in the north, exist forever.

So we had at this section introduced an amendment in committee that said: “Nothing in this section prohibits the inclusion of appendices to the provincial agreement relating to designated regions,” simply so that anyone reading this bill would be reassured. We expected that many of the contractors and construction workers unfamiliar with reading legislation would, in fact, pick this up and read it and wonder no doubt why there was no mention of local appendices.

This would simply be an assurance, by putting it in the bill, that we expected such things to exist, particularly at the beginning -- it is very necessary at the beginning -- and including it in the bill was simply a matter of clarity to assure both sides what our intent was and that nothing in the bill prohibited local appendices to be appended to the province-wide agreement.

Again, it was a clarificational and educational type of amendment for both sides in this bill. We regret to say very much that neither of the committee members from the other two parties saw fit to feel that this clarification, this additional piece of information in the bill, which would help to allay fears -- not at the top level of the union or the top bargaining position in the employer bargaining agent, but someone just interested in what was happening -- that there would not be local appendices.

I think we certainly could have included it with no loss of intent to the bill. We won’t make the amendment, but I wanted to point out to the House that we did make it in committee and we felt it was a worthwhile amendment from the simple fact of clarity in legislation, something which we as legislators should strive to achieve.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I might simply say there is nothing in this bill which inhibits the inclusion of local appendices and it seemed to us an unnecessary addition to bring this in.


I would defy the hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich to find anyone who would sit down to read Bill 22 as light evening reading in front of a fire, with a glass of cognac, or something of that sort. It is not something which the average individual is going to sit down and read; he is going to look at it for a very real purpose. If we can assist him in sorting out whichever difficulties he may have with the bill, the Ministry of Labour will be delighted to do so. But we didn’t see the purpose of encumbering the bill with extra language, simply in order to make it enjoyable.

Mr. O’Neil: As clarification on some of the comments made by the member for Windsor-Sandwich it is our understanding also -- and I think we have that commitment from the minister and from the ministry staff -- that the local appendices are understood to be included as part of the bill, even though the explanation was not in the explanation part.

Mr. Mackenzie: I think to some extent that the explanation of the Minister of Labour is exactly why that should have been in. It is not the reading that you would sit down and do with a glass of cognac in the evening; it is because this bill will have a profound effect on the bargaining in the entire construction industry.

One of the things we ran into in the hearings across the province of Ontario was that some regions had established some local bargaining practices. They were fearful -- that came through loud and clear right across the province -- as to the loss of some of the things they had been able to negotiate on a regional or local basis. We felt that nothing may inhibit it, but nothing says that is the case in the bill, either. If you have had some experience with collective bargaining, you are very cautious about what rights you don’t have in that particular legislation.

The other point I wanted to make just briefly on the same section and I believe the following one, is simply that we also argued at this point, and it was pretty obvious that it was a losing argument from the word go, but we argued the problem that probably causes as much trouble as any other issue in the construction industry in bargaining. That is the double-breasted unionism.

When a worker is organized and certified and when a collective agreement is signed, that covers that particular worker in that trade across the province of Ontario. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t necessarily cover the contractor. He is covered only in the region in which he is certified.

Mr. Kerrio: Or if he works for Hydro.

Mr. Mackenzie: This leads to as much trouble as any other particular problem in the whole construction bargaining situation.

We did have one amendment in that area and made some additional arguments, but obviously didn’t have the support of the committee to carry the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further comment on section 3 of the bill?

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Chairman, if you are dealing with sections 137 to 140 of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill, we will oppose those sections and ask for their removal from the bill.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Do you wish to comment on the matter?

Mr. O’Neil: Yes, I do. Again there have been days and days of comments concerning the removal of sections 137 to 140 from the bill. We feel that the co-ordinating agency should not be legislated by the government. We feel that if there is going to be a coordinating agency it should be one that is formed by the contractors, by the employers themselves, rather than by legislation. We have a worry that if the government steps into this process they are stepping into a process I don’t believe they have entered into before. It is something that the labour unions do not have by legislation on the other side.

As I said, we discussed these comments for days and days in committee. I think our views have been made known. Rather than prolong it, we ask for the removal of those sections from the bill.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: You are moving an amendment that section 137 be deleted?

Mr. O’Neil: Voting against it.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am glad that my colleagues on the right have come around on this particular issue. We moved this in committee. I guess one of the prerogatives of the official opposition is that you may get first crack at it in the House, but we moved it in committee. It required a one-week delay, as I recall it -- they had to have a caucus to decide whether or not they were going to support us on this particular amendment

I just want to make the point very clearly that there was no question from the word go that if there was a deficiency in this bill, in our opinion it was the co-ordinating agency, sections 137 to 140, which did in effect stack the deck as far as construction workers are concerned. And there was no question that it had to be removed.

We listened and listened carefully to the arguments in committee, but there was little doubt in our caucus fairly early in the game that this was the centre of most of the problem. It was an amendment that we moved and, quite frankly, we’re very delighted to be able to support our colleagues on the right on this particular amendment, now that they’ve seen the light from our moving it in committee.

An hon. member: You need a third hand to pat yourself on the back.

Mr. Mancini: I also would like to rise in support of my colleague’s amendment to delete sections 137 to 140 inclusive. We heard a great deal of debate on this subject in the committee. I dare say that 90 per cent of the unions were against the co-ordinating agency as were at least 50 per cent of the employers.

Mr. Kerrio: So the NDP didn’t make up their own minds.

Mr. Nixon: We know who pulls the strings.

Mr. Mancini: I also would like to say that never before has the government ever taken such a drastic step as to legislate this type of co-ordinating agency. It has never done that for the unions and I don’t think it ever will. I don’t think that we should have it done for the management side.

I would like to say that they’ve had a coordinating agency in two other jurisdictions across this country, in British Columbia and in Quebec, and it has not worked out well at all. We have had prolonged strikes in those areas and the total bargaining system had broken down. I say we have to make Bill 22 so that it will work. I say to the House from all the briefs that we received and from all the knowledge that we have been able to obtain, if we leave sections 137 to 140 in the bill, this type of bargaining in the construction industry will not be successful.

One looks at section 137 and sees the extraordinary powers we are giving to this coordinating agency, such as to set a fee. I think the members of this House should know that the main organization which wishes to be the co-ordinating agency is $150,000 in debt. When we asked them why they were in that debt position, they simply stated: “If we had to get the money, we’re sure that we could.” When the government legislates their fees, I guess they sure would be able to get the money. Also, we were unable to obtain from the minister what the constitution would read. We were also unable to obtain from the minister how this would stop multi-trade bargaining from prevailing in an atmosphere where it was to be single-trade bargaining.

All of these points were made very strongly in the committee. I’m glad to see the opposition is in agreement with this. It would have been voted down in the committee, except the chairman was a member of the opposition. I would want to point out to the members of this House, never in all the sittings of the committee had anyone substituted for the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. On the final day, when we had the most important vote in the committee, all of a sudden, we had substitutes by members who had not sat one day in the committee.

Mr. Kerrio: They had their orders.

Mr. Mancini: It was just a little bit of hanky-panky. You knew darn well then that that those sections would not have carried, if the chairman had been a member of the government party. I think that our position has been put forth very plainly and strongly. I want Bill 22 to work. I’m sure it will, once we delete this section. I support the amendments proposed by my colleague from Quinte.

Mr. Bounsall: We, of course, placed this amendment fairly early in the committee stage of this bill, as soon as we got it. We are delighted that after a week’s delay, which they took to consider their position on it, the Liberal Party members in that committee supported us on this.

Speaking to the content of the deletion, it never struck me as unreasonable if you had 20-odd -- whatever number it turns out to be -- employer bargaining agencies on the employers’ side conducting bargaining in their particular trade fields, that they would not find it reasonable to meet together from time to time -- in fact, rather compelling that they should meet together from time to time -- to say: “What are you doing in the bargaining in your field?”

It simply makes such common, ordinary, good sense for that to happen. Yet in this bill, and from the representations from across the province to us from some on the contractors’ side, and indeed from the officials from the ministry side, we are told that they are such individualists on the contractors’ side of the construction industry that there would be no way this bill would work unless we legislated that representatives of these 25 or 24 bargaining agents must get together. We are also told that they are so incapable of pulling themselves together for what would be various obvious interested conversations from time to time that we are going to have to write their constitution for them, set the regulations for appointing a board of directors and legislate through regulations the fees which must be collected from the other contractors in the province or the whole thing would fall apart. That just isn’t reasonable.

We do know that there are two or three of the contractor groups that would show real reluctance to come together -- some of the general contractors from Toronto, the mechanical contractors from across the province, I believe, and a few others. But it strikes me that it is to their detriment if they don’t wish to get together informally from time to time. We should expect this. It makes no sense whatsoever to set into motion the legislation of a group on the management side, to set their fees and outline their duties, responsibilities and privileges, because they can’t get together.

A lot of discussion at all of our presentations revolved around the formation of the co-ordinating council; in virtually all of our presentations it was mentioned. The management side, in the presentations they made to us, clearly saw this as a group that would have a lot of influence when they got together on the individual trade bargaining; they stated that, in fact, irrespective of section 140, which says that co-ordinating agency shall not exercise the bargaining rights held by the employer bargaining agency.

In the words of one of the submitters to us, “who is kidding whom?” When we legislate this body together, they are going to be there for the sole purpose of trying to influence the bargaining that goes on in every individual single trade. That is the reason they are there. That is the reason we would legislate them. It is in their own best interests to do it voluntarily. But, for heaven’s sake, again, who is kidding whom? There is no way we are going to cause this group to come together under legislation of this House to do that kind of a job, which no doubt they would do, in trying to influence the individual trades, irrespective of section 140, because how can you enforce section 140? Who is ever going to know what goes on behind the closed doors of that legislated agency if these sections carry in the bill? They could go ahead and do the exact opposite of section 140 and no one would know.


If they want to come together voluntarily to do it, that’s up to them. I suspect that they will and I suspect that the two or three which are determined to sit outside of that voluntary group with time will come. To me, it really makes little difference whether they come together or not. If I was a contractor and part of one of the employer bargaining agencies, I certainly would want to get together with my colleagues and transfer some information.

I would say the employer bargaining agency in each trade which does the bargaining has to collect some sort of a fee from the contractors who belong to their employer bargaining agency. For a very slight extra fee, if at all, you can provide enough funds for them to meet over lunch some place from time to time. But to set into shape by legislation a whole hierarchy which they have to attend and give them the right to collect a given type of fee from all the contractors in order to support that superstructure is not something we can support and simply is bad legislation.

I might say at this point that this is one thing in which the author of the report into province-wide bargaining in construction, Mr. Don Franks -- who did a very good job, I should say, in that report and had to put up with us on the committee in the hearings across the province -- disagreed with the members of the NDP in that committee and eventually, with the Liberals coming around to our point of view, the Liberals as well, I would say to Mr. Franks, you are not perfect in every respect. This is the one area in which you are flawed.

To the minister, I say it is obvious if we’d had the normal chairman situation in the committee these clauses would have been deleted in the committee. It is obvious when we are here with the numbers that the opposition have relative to the government, that these sections will be removed tonight. I would say to the minister that, faced with that inevitability, she would not fight this to the final stage but simply get up and acknowledge, however she wants to say it, why she wants these sections still in the bill but face and recognize the reality and simply remove them. If not, we will have to vote them out and that will happen.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I appreciate the solicitous comments made by my hon. colleague from Windsor-Sandwich but there are some points I think should be made regarding sections 137 to 140. Although the concept of multi-trade bargaining has been rejected as unworkable and retrogressive by all of the parties in this portion of the construction industry, it is equally recognized that province-wide bargaining in single trades cannot exist in a vacuum and particularly within the ICI sector. There must be intertrade links of communication and that has to be on both sides of the bargaining table.

At the present time, on the trade union side there is a very effective co-ordinating mechanism. There has been a history of interchange of information, of interunion co-operation through the provincial building trades council, and it has been effective. It would be, I suppose, Utopian if indeed we could anticipate that voluntarily the employers in this sector would come together with that kind of unified approach to the implementation of the progress of Bill 22. However, it is our information that past efforts in this area have been singularly unsuccessful and that some specific kind of moulding mechanism was necessary, if this were to come about.

There isn’t any doubt in my mind that the employers are capable of developing within legislation any kind of co-ordinated information-sharing agency. We have not specified any group exactly that should he doing this, nor do I intend to, because I believe that they have initiative and enough interest in this to come together in the kind of group which will be acceptable to the vast majority of the employers within the ICI sector of the construction industry. There does have to be some balance.

When we’re looking at this proposal I think we should look at it not from the actual drafting of the legislation but from our concern about the success of the process. If the process is to be successful, balance has to be achieved on both sides. This is an unusual step, there’s no doubt about that, but this is an unusual bill. There has never been this kind of labour legislation introduced in the province of Ontario before. It is an experiment.

It’s an experiment which we think will work. We think that it will assist trade unions and assist employers to work together cooperatively in an effective kind of way to ensure that the kind of disruptive programs and incidents which occur in this portion of the construction industry will be less likely to occur in the future.

I feel rather strongly that one of the major mechanisms of this bill is being deleted on the motion of the official opposition and supported by the third party. I want this bill to be successful. It is my understanding and my strong feeling that the way we can make it successful at this time is to develop within it the information-sharing agency on the employers’ side, which would provide the balance. I would urge the members of the opposition to withdraw their opposition to the inclusion of these sections at this time.

It is quite possible that within a relatively short period of time this section of the bill will not be necessary, and it is quite possible when this process really begins to roll that indeed it might be deleted. But for the initiation of this process by this bill we feel that an information-sharing mechanism for employers is essential --

Mr. S. Smith: That is the opposite of what you just said about Hydro.

Mr. Kerrio: We will trade you off for Hydro.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- therefore I would support the retention of these sections.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’m very happy to speak on this portion of the bill. I’m particularly happy to rise just after that rather surprising suggestion by the hon. Minister of Labour, with regard to sections 137 and 140, that if we were to find later on that we didn’t like them for some reason we could always remove them at that point. When the same minister rose in this House not an hour ago with regard to our attempt to include Hydro in the bill, and our statement that if we then didn’t like it and it sounded too expensive, we would have two years to remove that portion of the bill, she said that was impossible. “Better to leave it out now and we can always put it in later.”

Hon. B. Stephenson: I did not.

Mr. S. Smith: Yet on this occasion she says we can always take it out later. So apparently whether we put it in or we take it out sooner or later, seems to depend very much on the point of view of the minister about the individual amendment in question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Stuart, I do wish you would listen.

Mr. Nixon: She wants to have it both ways.

Mr. Germa: You should understand that.

Mr. S. Smith: As to the sections we are now discussing, we’ve given considerable thought to this matter because we recognize the history of construction trade bargaining in Ontario is, shall we say, a chequered one. We recognize that the large number of contractors compared to the relatively small number of unions, the lack of organization among the contractors compared to the, I think, excellent organization which is a credit to the union movement, has made it very difficult for the contractors to ever adopt even the slightest concert in their efforts or the slightest coordination.

Many of them are very sensitive about this and they recognize that on a voluntary basis their history of co-ordinating their activities has been a dismal one at best. They therefore have come -- not all of them but in part -- to the minister and they have come to us with the request that there be some co-ordinating agency legislated into the Act. They feel that somehow or other they can go to their errant members and their errant friends and wave a copy of the Act at them and say, “You see, there is an agency in the Act,” and that somehow then people would co-ordinate their efforts.

Of course, in the first place, looking at it just from the point of view that these people have brought to the attention of the Legislature and giving them the benefit of consideration at the very least, there is no guarantee that the simple legislating of such an agency would bring about a co-ordinated approach anyway. Secondly, if they want such an agency, there’s absolutely nothing to prevent them from organizing such an agency without the benefit, dubious as it may be, of legislation.

In the third place, as I have pointed out to many of these contractors, if the bill is accepted with the sections that are presently printed in the matter before us, the contractors will find that they must from time to time prove that that co-ordinating agency “adequately represents” the contractors as a whole.

That whole procedure of proving this, that whole procedure of being subject to the regulations that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, in wisdom or otherwise, from time to time bring clown in this province, is something that frankly I think the contractors are very foolish to want to get involved with. I think they are much better off to have the freedom of organizing their activities any way they please, co-ordinating themselves any way they please, without having inscribed in any form of legislation and subject to any regulations, a number of procedures to prove the adequacy of their representatives and so on and so forth.

I believe, frankly, that it is not in the interests of the employers to try to form this type of co-ordinating agency. I have told them very frankly that I believe they are overreacting to the long history they have had of squabbles among themselves and difficulties co-ordinating their efforts. In fact, under the present circumstances, they are obligated to band together anyhow into bargaining agencies for each of the trade by trade bargainings. Consequently, we’re not speaking now of hundreds or thousands of individual contractors. We’re only speaking of what is it -- the minister can correct me, 14, 24 --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Twenty-five.

Mr. S. Smith: -- a relatively small number of individual bargaining agents that have already been an amalgamation, so to speak, of large groups of contractors. It should not be an insurmountable problem for these people to, from time to time, communicate with one another -- which is what they propose the co-ordinating agency would be, an agency for communication -- it should not be an insurmountable obstacle for even 25 of these groups to chat with each other from time to time about how things are going.

Mr. Nixon: They probably belong to the same club.

Mr. S. Smith: In any case, I do believe from their own point of view they’d be better off outside the realm of legislation and having to prove that every time some contractor might say that that agency isn’t adequately representing him there would have to be some procedure by which we could judge whether or not a majority truly --

Hon. B. Stephenson: The Labour Relations Board.

Mr. S. Smith: -- were in favour of the organization. The Labour Relations Board would have to get involved. What do they need this for? They can have all the coordination they like without having to go through the nonsense of being able to wave a useless piece of paper which would somehow or other in their minds bring certain errant contractors into line, which it would, in fact, have no power to do anyhow.

So we see the Act confers nothing but trouble upon the contractors and, in any case, it gives them no benefits they wouldn’t have without the Act.

Let’s look at it from the point of view of the union people. They have, as you can well understand, a fair amount of concern about how this new experimental approach to bargaining is going to work. Nobody knows what the future holds in this case. All of us hope in good faith that the best interests of the people of Ontario will be advanced by this bill, and that’s why the bill will pass, but naturally there’s nervousness on both sides.

It’s terribly important, it seems to me, therefore, that this bill start in an atmosphere of acceptance and a willingness to co-operate and a willingness to show a certain degree of trust and acceptance on both sides of the bargaining table.

The labour unions feel, and with some justification, I suspect, that the co-ordinating agency issue, the issue of trying to legislate a co-ordinating agency, is to some extent either the thin edge of the wedge or --

Mr. Foulds: To coin a new phrase.

Mr. S. Smith: -- a remnant of some kind related to the desire on the part of the employers to have multi-track rather than single-trade bargaining. Many of the unions have spoken on this matter -- the minister is aware of this -- and the unions have a fear that this is some effort to try one way or another to bring about a multi-trade situation instead of a single-trade system, because most of the contractors are very frank in the fact that they would have preferred multi-trade, and it’s the unions’ reticence to go any further than single-trade bargaining at this time which has brought about Bill 22 and its many previous incarnations under different numerical designations.

Our feeling, therefore, is that the unions have shown good faith in this matter. There is no similar legislated group on behalf of co-ordinating unions one with the other. The unions have shown a willingness to try this. The contractors have shown a willingness to try this. It’s, to be colloquial ‘about it, a new ball game, frankly. I think the contractors are still a trifle nervous about this because of their past experience. I think they should give the new ball game a chance.

We believe this bill is basically a good bill. We believe the work that’s gone into it in the committee has basically been constructive and excellent work among members of all parties on the committee, and we are very pleased about that.


With regard to sections 137 to 140, however, we think the labour people are correct from their point of view of not wishing to see inscribed in the legislation a somewhat one-sided piece of work, as such sections would be; and from the point of view of the contractors, we frankly think that their desire to see this in the law is understandable but, in my view, misguided. I think their own interests and the interests of working people and the interests of all Ontarians will be far better served by leaving that out of the legislation and allowing the contractors, among their bargaining agents, to work out their own means of co-ordination and communication which, I’m sure, would be quite acceptable to everyone in Ontario. That’s why we will support the deletion of sections 137 to 140.

Mr. Pope: As I understand the arguments that have been raised with respect to the deletion of sections 137 through 140, particularly the last comments by the hon. Leader of the Opposition they are that in the absence of a systematic agreement between employer and employee with respect to compulsory multi-trade bargaining there should be no legislated agreement between employers and employees with respect to single- trade collective bargaining throughout the province.

I might say that that is not my understanding. I believe that the hon. Leader of the Opposition stated his position that those employer agencies, or organizations, that submitted to the resource development committee their support for the concept of a coordinating agency to deal with province-wide collective bargaining on a single-trade basis were misguided. I believe that was his comment. He also indicated that he felt that contractors have shown a willingness to try a voluntary system.

All I can say with respect to the Leader of the Opposition is that the reading of the brief submitted to the standing committee with respect to this matter has not shown that the contractors have a willingness to try a voluntary co-ordinating agency. In fact, the majority of their briefs submit that there is need for a mandatory co-ordinating agency. These are people who have been dealing with the problems of province-wide collective bargaining, or the lack thereof in Ontario, for a period of years now. Their submissions and their problems were brought before the committee. It was their feeling, based on their experience, with some exceptions, that there is need for a mandatory co-ordinating agency to provide some balance and to provide some system of order in the collective bargaining relationships between employers and employees.

The comments that I heard and I read on the briefs with respect to some contracting associations which did not support the concept of a mandatory co-ordinating agency had to do with the fact that they felt that, to some extent, their own specific trade, or their own specific area with respect to multi-trade bargaining was sufficiently organized as it was. I would submit that, on balance of the submissions made to the committee by the employers, there’s no basis at all for saying that the contractors have indicated a willingness to try a voluntary co-ordinating agency system. In fact, exactly the opposite is taking place.

I think that any reasoned analysis of the submissions shows that if we are to have an effective single-trade, province-wide, bargaining system in Ontario with respect to certain sectors of the construction industry, that we will need to have the type of agency that has been envisaged by sections 131 to 140 of the Act and, therefore, that the amendment proposed is not in accordance with the wishes generally, or the type of bargaining relationship that is desired in Ontario. Nor is it in accordance with the wishes of the majority of contractors who have made their feelings known to the committee. For that reason, I think that this amendment should be opposed.

Mr. Charlton: I rise in support of the amendments. Sections 137 to 140 of the Act provide for me, at least, and I think for most of us on this side of the House, the one major contradiction in this bill. When we are going through it, it was said over and over again that many of the sections were silent on the structure that the bargaining agents would take on both sides -- the union side and the employer side. It was said that they were silent because the ministry didn’t want to interfere in the internal structures of those organizations -- that the organizations should be able to establish them and make them workable on their own.

Then we get to the end of the bill -- sections 137 to 140 -- and we find exactly the opposite view. Because the contractors have complained that they haven’t been able to coordinate voluntarily, we are going to legislate it. We are going to interfere in the internal structure.

During the committee hearings, I heard from the minister and from the ministry officials conflicting points of view about the union side in terms of co-ordination. Some felt that the unions were doing an effective job of co-ordinating and others from the ministry felt that they weren’t. But whichever the case, there is certainly nothing in the bill which sets up a mandatory co-ordinating agency for the employee side, and that’s a contradiction. The bill is supposed to be providing balance in the construction industry in Ontario.

It seems to me, as has been suggested by a number of the speakers, that this is a new ball game. To a large degree, in the bargaining agencies on both sides, there is going to be a smaller number of people involved -- 20 or 25 bargaining agencies. In a much larger situation there are some serious questions in everybody’s mind about exactly what direction the negotiations are going to take -- in terms of local appendices and all of the other things we have talked about. Here both sides will find co-ordination almost absolutely necessary in their process. They are not going to be in a position to not talk to each other, as they have been in smaller groups at the local level.

The one thing that frightens the trade union side about this mandatory co-ordinating agency is not only their own internal fear of what legislating a co-ordinating agency will mean, but it is a fear that’s born from having sat in on the hearings and listened to a number of the contractors’ side saying quite clearly and emphatically that the co-ordinating agency had to be there and had to be mandatory so that very definitely they could control the mavericks on the contractors’ side and bring them into line. And that’s not what the bill says that co-ordination should be about.

Co-ordination, according to the minister and the ministry staff, is supposed to be an exchange of information. But it was made quite clear to me, and I think most of the members of the committee, that the contractors felt quite strongly that the influence would he great and that the ability of, as they called them, “mavericks” to flee the fold would be lost.

For those reasons we are very happy to see the opposition party move these amendments as we very strongly felt the position ourselves and moved these amendments in the committee ourselves. We feel very strongly that not only are we going to support these amendments, but that if these sections remain in the bill we will find ourselves in the position of not being able to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of sections 137 to 140, inclusive, as set out in section 3, will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This will be stacked for a vote at 10:15.

Sections 4 and 5 of the bill agreed to.


House in committee on Bill 60, An Act to reform the Law respecting Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I would point out to the members of the committee that at a previous sitting we carried through to section 53, the end of part II.

Is there any further discussion, comments or amendments on this bill?

On section 54:

Mr. Lawlor: I want to talk about section 54, and part IV, having to do with survivorship. Just before I do, and in line with an alteration that has been made, I want to mention for the record and in Hansard that part IV on survivorship was formerly part III with respect to the next preceding earlier bill. There have been so many of them that it is somewhat difficult to keep track.

This is the new edition and it has been added to. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Attorney General if those brand new sections in part III in the designation of beneficiaries, which I know we are over -- just one question if you will -- had been properly presented to, let’s say, the wills section of the bar association and thoroughly perused -- because to date, apart from the work in this House, it hasn’t been canvassed or analysed. Has that received full approval?


Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I can’t give the member for Lakeshore any specific assurance in respect to the wills and trusts section of the bar association. As I think the member for Lakeshore appreciates, what we’re concerned about is the uniformity of legislation throughout the Dominion of Canada, and these sections are really based on the recommended Act that has come from the uniformity law commissioners.

I’m confident that the bar association will support these particular sections, but I can’t give you any specific assurance that it has given its specific approval. Again, it’s based on the recommended uniform Act, and I think the member for Lakeshore would agree it is certainly in the public interest to make these sections as uniform as possible throughout the Dominion.

I know that these sections, for example, have been adopted by the previous government of Manitoba and the present government of Alberta.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, it would be an abuse of procedure if I pushed it very much further. I have just, if you will, one further word on these designations. When you, by a piece of paper which is not a will, designate for the purpose of an insurance company or a pension fund a new beneficiary without shrouding it in sufficient safeguards with respect to fraud or with respect to alteration, I would have thought that that would be a matter of fair contention. It is a shame, in a way, that the particular sections which are completely new and inserted into the last edition were not given greater approval.

If the Commission on the Uniformity of Laws in Canada finds that acceptable, then who is the mere member for Lakeshore to take umbrage? Nevertheless, I find it very questionable and I think you should look at it. That is too easy a way to change the designation. You surround the will with all kinds of safeguards to see that it is done properly with the witnessing and where the signature goes, but with a slip of paper you can alter where your insurance money is going to go.

I’ll go on, Mr. Chairman, if I may. We’re on to survivorship, section 61, the old section 54. This is a commendable change. I can’t spend a great deal of time on it. Previously, if, in a common accident, the two parties died, it was deemed that the younger spouse would survive the elder and that led to a whole series of great faults because the estate would go over to the younger and the heirs at law, next of kin of the younger would be the beneficiaries if there were no children, if there were no issue, and the older, whoever that might he -- usually the husband -- his next of kin would get nothing.

They now say it works back and forward whether there’s a will or not or whether it’s an intestacy, that the estate then, both being dead, will go off to their separate next of kin in the absence of issue. That’s a fairly complicated but beneficial change. I have just one question on section 63 --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Just as a matter of information, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 57.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Could you hold that for just a moment?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It is just really as a matter of information for the member for Lakeshore that I wish to amend that section. And I am hoping my amendment may alleviate some of his concerns, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: It would be mere niggling to say “no” wouldn’t it? But it has been passed hasn’t it, Mr. Chairman?

Section 54 agreed to. Sections 55 and 56 agreed to.

On section 57:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that section 57 except subsection (b) of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “Where a participant in a plan has designated a person to receive a benefit under the plan on the death of a participant:

“a) the person administering the plan is discharged on paying the benefit to the person designated under the latest designation made in accordance with the terms of the plan in the absence of actual notice of the subsequent designation or revocation made under section 55, but not in accordance with the terms of the plan.”

Mr. Lawlor: I think I would require further clarification, Mr. Chairman.

The section as it now is states that in substance. It goes on in subsection (b) and says “the person designated may enforce payment of the benefit payable to him under the plan but the person administering the plan may set up any defence that he could have set up against the participant or his personal representative.”

I don’t quite understand why, if there is a defence against the payment out on whatever grounds there may be, is that adequately preserved then in the legislation as it has been amended, and, in effect, why did you think there was a grave necessity to amend the section in a fairly thorough way?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, subsection (b) remains as it is, but I think what we are concerned about here is, of course, where there is actual notice of a subsequent designation or revocation made under section 55. And while I think it is quite obvious that the trustee in these should have some protection, it is important that where there is actual notice of a change then that notice have some effect.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, it’s okay.

Mr. Foulds: I don’t want to appear niggling on this point but the opposition has been informed that we were supposed to get our amendments on the Friday before they were presented to be discussed in the House. It would be appreciated if the other side would do the same. Is this a new one you just thought up over the weekend?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No. That is certainly my understanding, Mr. Chairman. I thought we had advised the opposition parties of this amendment. I may be mistaken in that respect. Yes, I am advised that the Clerk was advised of this amendment on Friday.

Mr. Foulds: That’s the error. Would you be good enough to also inform the House Leader?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s fair enough, Mr. Chairman.

Motion agreed to.

Section 57, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 58 to 68, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 69:

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Chairman, we gave notice of this motion last week to the Attorney General. It is a motion to delete section 69, subsection 1, clause (a), subclause (xii), which reads: “where the dependant is the spouse of the deceased, a course of conduct by the spouse during the lifetime of the deceased that is an obvious and gross repudiation of the relationship.”

I would like to speak to that if I could, Mr. Chairman.

I discussed this with the Attorney General and his advisers last week and was assured by the Attorney General that this clause was necessary to the implementation of the bill because it meant that the court could have regard to conduct of an applicant under section 69 which otherwise the court would be lacking. But I would draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the fact that in clause 69(b) which reads: “In addition to the evidence adduced by the parties appearing, [the court] may direct such other evidence to be given as the court considers necessary or proper,” which means, as far as I can understand it, that the court may ask for any kind of evidence it considers necessary or proper.

I think there is a principle involved in the kind of clause we see in section 69(1)(a)(xii) which I would like to question and this is why I move for deletion.

At the very least this clause, in this context, it seems to me, should spell out that the course of conduct by the spouse that is to be considered should be confined to the period during cohabitation, and not the lifetime of the deceased. I move for deletion because, although I inquired of the Attorney General on this point and was assured by him that there were English precedents on the question of “obvious and gross repudiation” involved in this clause, the cases which he subsequently cited to this House involving English precedents talked of “obvious and gross conduct,” and the clause we see before us is n clause that refers to “obvious and gross repudiation.”

If the Attorney General has any knowledge of English precedent that deals with obvious and gross repudiation of a relationship, I haven’t heard it. I think this is a very dubious kind of element to be raising in our law and I would simply like to see it deleted.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In reference to the member for Carleton East’s reference to section 69(1)(b), which she points out allows the court to ask for evidence, again inherent in that is that the evidence must be related to a relevant issue. The conduct, in my respectful submission, could only be considered relevant if it is listed in section 69(1)(a). One of the illustrations that I gave to the member and I appreciate her concern -- is, for example, a dependant might for example cause the death of the deceased and it may not be during cohabitation, and that -- I think it’s trite to say that that would amount to a rather gross or obvious repudiation of the relationship.

I think what we’re concerned about here, and I appreciate we’re going to have confront this issue in relation to the family law reform bill, but when we’re dealing with an application for support of a dependant, we are, in effect, being asked to deprive the testator, the deceased, of his or her wishes in relation to who are the named beneficiaries. The clause is in the interest of the named beneficiaries who should not be prejudiced by an application brought on behalf of someone who qualifies technically as a dependant, but who by reason of their conduct should not be in a position to interfere with the expressed wishes of the testator.

Last week I referred to some English authorities, hoping to assist the members of the Legislature in demonstrating the very narrow area that this language was intended to deal with so far as the nature of conduct is concerned. We’re satisfied that we’re only dealing with conduct in the most extreme cases.

Ms. Gigantes: Extreme repudiation. That’s a difference.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s right -- but in the most extreme cases. I think we’re dealing with a much narrower area than the area I know is of some concern to the member for Carleton East in relation to our family law reform bill, where we are talking about issues between living spouses.

Here we’re dealing with a deceased spouse who has indicated his or her wishes with respect to who their beneficiaries are going to be. We’re simply concerned that the court be given the opportunity to deprive a technical dependant of making a claim on an estate and therefore possibly defeating the interests of the designated beneficiaries. Someone who, considering these circumstances -- and we’re talking about pretty extreme circumstances -- should not be given that right.

I don’t think I can assist the member for Carleton East or anybody else in indicating why we support the section as it stands and are not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will there be any further discussion on this section?

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to say --


Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe there was an agreement with the House leaders that the division would take place on Bill 22 at this time. So we will continue the debate on this particular section when the committee again reconvenes.

Call in the members.

The committee divided on Mr. O’Neil’s motion to amend section 125 of the Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 22; nays 73.

The committee divided on the question that sections 137 to 140, inclusive, of the Act, as set out in section 3, stand as part of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 44; nays 51.

Mr. Chairman: These sections of the Act shall be struck from the bill.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Bill 22, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendments, and asked for leave to sit again.


The following bill was given third reading on motion: Bill 22, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the House adjourned at 10:40 p.m.