CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
BRANTFORD AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
LONDON CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA
ASSOCIATION OF INVESTIGATORS AND GUARD AGENCIES OF ONTARIO
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
CONTENTS
Thursday 3 September 1992
Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40
Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Linda Ciglen, director, provincial affairs
Catherine S. Swift, senior vice-president, provincial affairs
Michel Décary, vice-president, Quebec
Carla Lipsig-Mummé
Newmarket Chamber of Commerce
Debbie Allen-Cooke, second vice-president
Heather Nicholson-Morrison, manager
Brantford and District Labour Council
Dave Digout, board member and chair, political action committee
Retail Council of Canada
Alasdair J. McKichan, president
London Conference of the United Church of Canada
Timothy Dayfoot, chair, church in society committee
Association of Investigators and Guard Agencies of Ontario
W. Roy Fitz-Gerald, member, legislative committee
Deborah Coles, member, legislative committee
Ben Reiners, member, legislative committee
Mark Ellis, legal counsel
Toronto Sun Publishing Corp
Paul Godfrey, president and chief operating officer
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation
Liz Barkley, president
Earl Manners, vice-president
Ontario Mining Association
John Blogg, board secretary, and manager, industrial relations
Ken Hughes, chair, industrial relations committee
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Conway
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Burns, Beverly, executive assistant to the deputy minister, Ministry of Labour
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1000 in room 151.
LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI
Consideration of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 10 o'clock. We're ready to resume these hearings into Bill 40. The first participant is the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, if they'd please come forward, have a seat, tell us their names and titles, if any. We've received your package of materials. That'll be made an exhibit and form part of the record. Tell us what you will. Please try to save the last half of the half-hour for exchanges and dialogue. Go ahead.
Ms Linda Ciglen: My name is Linda Ciglen. I'm the director of provincial affairs for Ontario of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. With me are Catherine Swift, our senior vice-president for provincial affairs, and Michel Décary, our vice-president for Quebec. Mr Décary is here particularly because there's been so much misinformation and misrepresentation about the Quebec situation and we thought we'd inject some facts into this whole debate.
Never in the 20-year history of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have we seen legislation that's so potentially damaging for this province introduced by an Ontario government. This proposed labour legislation not only has provincial implications but ripples far beyond Ontario's borders to have harmful effects throughout Canada. In blunt language its message is: "Warning! Invest, start a business, take up residence or accept a job in Ontario at your own risk!"
Much has been written and said about the government's proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act and their various packagings, and today's allotment of time in no way allows us to get into the concerns in any kind of comprehensive manner. We did submit a very lengthy brief to the Minister of Labour when he was touring the province in February and many of our members' concerns are already contained in that.
Given the limited amount of standing committee hearing time which the government has allowed on this issue, our presentation today will focus primarily on three areas, economic impact, Bill 40's outrageous curtailment of individual rights and the Quebec situation. I'm going to turn it over to Catherine to talk about the economic impact.
Ms Catherine Swift: The largest concern of the small business community with this legislation is really the overall macroeconomic impact. As you probably know, the vast majority of small firms are not organized, and given that about 80% of them have less than 20 employees in this province, the likelihood of organization is rather slim, but the overall macro-impact and the effect that has on every business in the province, notably small business, is of serious concern.
As we've said many times, and as many of you may already know, small businesses, indeed those firms with less than 20 employees, have created over 80% of the new jobs in the Canadian economy and the Ontario economy over the last 10 to 12 years. This job-creating record is naturally seriously threatened by these legislative proposals.
The amount of concern small businesses in Ontario are having about the proposed labour law amendments can't be overstated. Indeed on one of our regular surveys we do with our members we found provincial labour laws shot up to the number three ranking in terms of overall problems facing independent business, and this is historically very unusual.
The total tax burden and government regulation and paperwork, which are perennial number one and number two concerns of small business, were almost eclipsed by labour law, again an unprecedented situation with surveying we've been doing for 20 years.
When we look at the comparison of survey results across provinces, the results are even more astounding. Ontario stands out above all other provinces as an area of major concern on the labour law issue.
Another survey that we did a few months ago and that we're going to be repeating in the next month or so--we call it our Hard Facts Survey--also showed the impact of the concern over the labour legislation. This survey looks at employment and investment projections of businesses, and what we found was that over the two-year period from 1990 to 1992 small and medium-sized firms in Ontario cut their full-time workforce by over 50% more than the rest of the country.
Of course we had recession, of course we had other problems happening that would have affected the labour force, but we found the results in Ontario were dramatically different than elsewhere in the country. Ontario firms reported considerably larger reductions in both full- and part-time staff during the life of this particular government than was the case anywhere else in the country.
The problem we also see which is very worrisome is that this process of cutting staff is still in progress in Ontario and this is not the case elsewhere in the country. Small firms in Ontario plan further cutbacks this year, we've been told, and we'll be confirming that and quantifying it later this year, whereas what we found elsewhere in Canada was that essentially the haemorrhaging had stopped and things were flat or even improving a bit in some other jurisdictions. So the results from Ontario stood out by their very negative nature.
As we know, apologists for Bill 40 continue to deny any possible connection between this legislation and job losses, but again our members have made this connection explicit. What we found again in this survey was that over half of members felt the one thing that would prompt them to take on more staff in the next year or so was more confidence in the provincial government and again this result stood out dramatically among those from other provinces.
From the comments, letters, phone calls, faxes--all communication that we've been getting from our small business members in Ontario--it is clear that our members' foremost concern is the overall economic impact Bill 40 will have on our struggling Ontario.
Our members are unable to understand the government's persistent refusal to conduct an economic impact study. Business people would never go ahead with such a dramatic change in legislation without conducting some type of analysis. In fact they would be more likely to suspect the government of bad faith than of such foolishness, and many believe that an economic impact study has indeed been performed by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology which confirms the business community's worst fears, about a quarter of a million lost jobs. This is of course why this study has not come to light, although it's been greatly rumoured.
It's very insulting to the small firms of Ontario, these hardworking, job-creating engines of growth of the Ontario economy, to dismiss their deeply felt concerns as scaremongering. The truth is that Ontario's small businesses are truly scared and would not be expressing these views if they felt otherwise.
I'd like to turn to Linda again to discuss the whole question of curtailment of democratic rights.
Ms Ciglen: Besides the negative economic impact, Bill 40 institutionalizes a massive infringement of the rights and freedoms of individual Ontarians, particularly individual working men and women. Unions' powers and rights are being increased at the expense of the rights of Ontario workers. This violation of the principles of democracy is all the more shocking coming from a party that has embedded in its name the word "democratic." If the governing party were a business, it could be prosecuted for misleading advertising.
Individual workers are not given any right to full disclosure of a union's constitution, dues structure or labour relations history during the union's organizing campaign. This is completely opposite to the trend in consumer protection law, which is towards more and fuller disclosure. Banks and trust companies are required by law to fully disclose the cost of credit. Manufacturers must print warning labels on their packages, yet unions are given a favoured position among all other purveyors of goods and services and potential consumers of union services are deprived of their basic consumer right to full and fair disclosure before making their purchase decision.
Bill 40 enshrines another denial of basic consumer rights. In making a decision on unionization, which profoundly affects an individual's livelihood, a worker will have less protection than a consumer dealing with a door-to-door salesperson who gets a three-day grace period to change his or her mind. Without a secret ballot vote to ensure that the free choice of workers is respected, the right to change one's mind becomes essential.
Beyond the deprivation of basic consumer rights, this pales besides the violation of basic democratic rights contained in Bill 40. Foremost among these is that there is no right to a supervised secret ballot vote to decide whether a union should be certified or a strike mandate given. Workers do not have the opportunity to exercise their choice in privacy, unhampered by peer or other pressure, a right which is the cornerstone of our democracy.
The fairest and most accurate way to permit employees to exercise their true and free choice is to permit open discussion of the implications of unionization, require unions to disclose the cost of joining, the facts on what a union has secured for employees of similar companies, and to hold a supervised secret ballot vote.
It's interesting that the one labour leader who has come out and said that a secret ballot vote is a possibility is Gord Wilson, and we certainly applaud his leadership in this arena and suggest that the government take this seriously. He has specified that a secret ballot vote would be acceptable if it were the day after the application for certification. The only challenge would be the logistical nightmare that would be the result of following this procedure with only a one-day window. CFIB recommends that this secret ballot provision be instituted, as Gord Wilson has offered, with the reasonable change of an expeditious time frame to ensure efficiency and security in the secret ballot vote.
1010
Worst of all, Bill 40 takes away a worker's essential right to choose whether or not to go on strike when the union leadership calls a strike. A worker's individual right to decide whether to strike or to work allows each worker to assess his or her own financial situation and degree of support for the union position. It is a powerful safeguard to hold the union accountable and make sure that it follows the wishes of the individual workers rather than imposing its will on them. Given that union staff salaries continue to be paid even when the union rank and file is out on strike, a worker's fundamental right to choose whether or not to support a strike call is a critical check and balance on the unbridled power of unions.
Bill 40 destroys this crucial safeguard and puts individual workers at the complete mercy of the union. They will no longer have the right to decide to oppose a union leader's strike call. A worker who feels the union leadership is being unreasonable or who simply cannot afford to go on strike loses his or her fundamental freedom of choice to continue to work and support his or her family.
It is shameful and hypocritical that members of the government party should permit such wholesale destruction of individual rights. The antidemocratic philosophy that permeates Bill 40 is so pervasive that this committee should recommend to the government, in the name of democracy, that the bill be withdrawn.
Now I'd like to turn it over to Michel to talk about the Quebec situation.
Mr Michel Décary: On m'a demandé d'accompagner mes collègues de l'Ontario afin de vous dire quelques mots sur l'expérience du Québec dans le domaine des lois du travail, et plus spécifiquement en ce qui concerne la loi antibriseurs de grève.
Apparemment, vous regardez souvent et longtemps du côté du Québec, pour vous inspirer dans ce domaine. J'admets que dans plusieurs secteurs, le Québec peut être et mérite d'être une source d'inspiration, mais je vous jure que ce n'est pas le cas avec le sujet qui vous intéresse aujourd'hui, soit la loi interdisant aux employeurs de recourir à des travailleurs de remplacement.
The truth is that the grass is not greener in Quebec. Among other things, for several years the unemployment rate in my province has been significantly higher than in Ontario. Also, since our law was introduced, Quebec has lost nearly one million more days because of labour strife than has Ontario, and since 1978, Quebec has suffered 20% more strikes than this province. Investment in Quebec has also suffered compared to Ontario.
If you take, for example, the year 1991 when Ontario was really getting hammered by the recession, as bad as that situation was in Ontario last year, you still got 75% more investment dollars than we got in Quebec. That's not accidental. Outside investors can establish operations anywhere, and of course they prefer to locate in a jurisdiction where they don't have to face such an unbalanced risk to their company in the event of a strike.
Outside investment is not the only thing that drops when a government passes laws of this nature. Employment in firms that operate in more than one jurisdiction shifts from the affected area to another one that doesn't have that kind of law. In other words, when a strike occurs in your jurisdiction and you have facilities elsewhere, you shift production to that other area and, believe me, these jobs never come back.
That was the case for us in Quebec with companies like la Fonderie Saint-Croix in Lotbinière, which is near Quebec City, that lost tons of jobs. It was also the case with a company called IPL in Bellechasse. Quebec has learned the hard way that sometimes you can really kill your friends by trying to help them.
Ms Ciglen: In conclusion, if unions had a track record of being workplace partners, dedicated to improving productivity and increasing cooperation, the business community would be falling all over itself to have unions in their workplaces, and individual workers would be rushing to embrace them. If unions had an attractive package to offer employees, they would not require all of this unbalanced legislation in order to extend their presence in the workplace.
Unions are definitely appropriate for some firms in some circumstances, and in the best-case scenario they can achieve significant benefits for their members and also improve a firm's productivity. However, in the worst-case scenario, unions all too often leave a trail of devastation and destruction in their wake: worsened productivity, workplace problems, failing competitiveness, labour strife and disheartened workers.
The best, most honest and most helpful way for unions to shore up their declining membership is, rather than have the government pass legislation to institute it, to offer workers value for their membership dues rather than having governments increase their numbers by legislated inequities.
Finally, this NDP government should adhere to the principles of democracy and not emulate the worst traits of unionism. This government has a responsibility to govern with wisdom, sensitivity and fairness for the benefit of the province as a whole and not gauge its thinking and actions to what most pleases the leaders of labour.
Thank you. We're pleased to entertain your questions.
The Chair: Five minutes per caucus, please.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. On this potentially last day of public hearings, on page 5 of your presentation, you drop what could only be referred to as a bombshell. You are saying that the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has conducted an impact study that says there will be over 250,000 jobs lost. Could you please comment on that?
Ms Swift: There have been rumours circulating for the last couple of weeks that there is such a study that exists, and indeed, that the job losses concluded by this study were 250,000. I might note that there have been a number of studies conducted through the course of this legislative development by different groups, consulting firms and so on, that have come out with very similar numbers. So it is certainly in the ballpark of other studies that we've seen. I think it's not surprising that you wouldn't have seen this study come out of the government, given the findings, but that is the rumour out there.
There's also a rumour that the authors can probably be found out in Lake Ontario somewhere dropping copies into the middle of the lake, but that has been the rumour that has seemingly been leaked out of MITT, and naturally, we would be very interested in having that study published by the government.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): We will pursue that aggressively. If that study exists, I can only assume we will have access to it and will ensure that study is publicly available before we make this decision. If it exists and the government chooses to hide it, we'll hold it accountable for that as well. I'll make the assumption that the government will table that document, if it does exist, before the Legislature deals with the final report, and I'll assume the government members will ensure that takes place. If they want to assure us that it doesn't exist, then that will also be acceptable.
We're now in the final day of five weeks of hearings. We've heard from the leadership, the labour movement, and they have universally condemned the business community for its response to the Labour Relations Act amendments. It's been very disappointing for me, because yesterday the OPSEU president said that you are spoiled crybabies. The United Food and Commercial Workers last night said that you've launched--I don't mean you, I mean the business community in total--a vitriolic, offensive campaign consisting of misinformation, fearmongering etc.
My point is this: The Premier talks about a partnership between business and labour as the key to getting our economy going, but I think this process we're going through has been extremely divisive. I've heard from the labour movement that it has no trust in the business community. They think universally that you are fearmongering, that you are spoiled crybabies.
This law is going to pass. The timetable is set. We in the opposition have no choice. By Thanksgiving it's going to go through the Legislature. We will do our best to get significant amendments made, but I have no confidence that's going to happen. It's going to pass. Then the Premier is going to call for partnerships between business and labour as the key to success. Can you and your organization give us any indication of how likely that is to happen, having heard that labour has no confidence in the business community and having heard your concerns about this partnership?
Ms Swift: I guess the way we've viewed the reaction of labour to the very legitimate concerns of business simply speaks to why we have problems. There's been a very insulting response. No matter what studies, what very supportable, objective documentation, have been presented from all kinds of different sources, they've been dismissed as scaremongering and so on. So I think, unfortunately, the reaction of labour has shown why we have difficulties with a notion of partnership.
You're quite right, though: This process has been incredibly divisive. It has not been consultative. At this point most groups, including ours, have done several analyses and submissions of varying degrees on this issue. None of them has been taken into account one iota. There's been a bit of cosmetic tinkering through the processes the legislation has moved, but nothing substantive. So there's no question the business community has not been listened to one bit by this process. It has been totally one-sided.
You're quite right. I suspect there's a lot of rhetoric about partnership; there's a lot of talk with absolutely no backup, no action. That's been the case throughout. The confidence is zero by business in this government, and it is highly unfortunate. You can call it scaremongering, you can call it whatever you want, but when the decision-makers who are creating jobs and making investment tell you there's a serious problem, if you're government you're out of your mind if you don't think there is a serious problem.
1020
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Just a point of information: You talked about the secret government-sponsored economic impact study. I'd just like to let you know that the Ontario PC party several weeks ago did file a request for this information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and we're hopeful that we can at least get the numbers that you are speaking about. So we've already taken action on that front.
As you know, we have been very concerned about the loss of individual rights that are being proposed under Bill 40. In your presentation you mention the offer that was made by Gord Wilson concerning the secret ballot provision. I'd like to know under what circumstances that offer was made by Mr Wilson, and if you see this as a means that he's suggesting where we could bridge the gap between business and labour.
Ms Ciglen: I certainly hope so. He made that offer on a cable TV network in public. He was appearing with Judith Andrew of our organization on a TV talk show, and a question came in from one of the callers about the secret ballot vote. At that time he said that a secret ballot vote would be acceptable if it were to be held the day after the application for certification.
The problem with that is the logistical nightmares that would occur in trying to get a vote up and running that quickly. But certainly to do a secret ballot vote expeditiously would be in accordance with what our members want, so I think there may be some room for common ground there.
I understand he did not confirm that offer of his before this committee, that he still came out and said that a secret ballot vote was not acceptable, so I think he should definitely be called to account for that. He is the only labour leader who has made an attempt to bridge that gap in that way.
Mrs Witmer: I hope then the government will continue to look very seriously at that issue. I can assure you that many individuals are most eager to have that opportunity.
Ms Ciglen: His concern with votes seemed to be about the delays, so I think if, again--
Mrs Witmer: The timing.
Ms Ciglen: --we can get together and find a consensus on how to solve the delay problem, then we can work something out.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to focus now on your withdrawal from the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board project in your protest over the labour relations proposals. What are the reasons behind your decision and how are they tied to labour law reform?
Ms Ciglen: That was a very agonizing decision. It was a very hard decision to make. The CFIB is so committed to training. We've been in the forefront of training issues, conducting a lot of research and involved in all the training initiatives. It was very hard for us to do.
But we felt that training and jobs are so intertwined--they're inextricably intertwined--that to continue on in a training initiative when legislation such as this was being proposed, which was going to be undermining the jobs, left us with the question: "Training for what? Training for what purpose if the jobs aren't going to be there?" We felt we needed to make that point so strongly to the Premier that there was no other way to do it but withdraw from OTAB.
Mrs Witmer: My final question is regarding the Quebec experience. As you know, oftentimes that experience is quoted as having been a very successful one, yet the indication you've given to us today is that it has actually had a very negative impact on the business climate in Quebec. Could you comment further as to what is happening, and how has this government misunderstood?
Mr Décary: There are several aspects. Number one, since the legislation there has been an increase in the number of days lost through strikes, there has been an increase in the number of strikes, and the original purpose of the legislation, which was to reduce violence, was not met. There has been no drop in violence. Most of the violence that occurred in labour conflicts was in areas that were either in federal jurisdictions or violence which was against the property of the company. So the legislation has not had the desired impact.
Another thing we have found is that labour relations--and I'm sure you'll all agree--is a very delicate issue. Everybody wants labour peace. It's to everybody's interest. When you tip the balance a bit too much one way, then you create a very distorted situation.
What we had in Quebec--after our legislation was brought in, it was of course very well received by the unions, but that victory did not give satisfaction for very long. Then it went to other items: Major salary increases were accorded by the Quebec government, for example, for public sector workers and there was an escalation to the point that the Quebec government had to backtrack. The PQ government of the mid-1980s had started to backtrack in rolling back wages and also touching labour legislation such as our decree system. The number of decrees was reduced in Quebec, and that all started and continued a little bit after the arrival of the Bourassa government to bring back a balance. That's the delicate thing, to maintain that balance so every group doesn't have everything it wants, but it can live with the situation.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Thank you for your presentation. Let me say at the outset that, from the government side, we're certainly not aware of any secret studies. If it's a secret to everybody, it's a secret to us as well.
I understand your concerns. I understand the reason for your concerns in terms of business and conducting business in the province of Ontario and your need to ensure that you have a profitable operation when you run a business in this province. I have no quarrel with that whatsoever.
I do disagree on some of the principles that, I think, you insist are going to take place in this province. I'm very concerned about some of the statements your organization makes--some based on fact, some not based on fact--in terms of the damage this legislation could potentially do to the province of Ontario.
I want to ask you a very straightforward question. If this law was in place tomorrow afternoon, specifically what part of this law would damage your operation? What I mean by that is that this law removes the barriers a bit to allow people in Ontario--which they currently do have--to choose whether or not they want to, individually or collectively, bargain with their employer for wages and benefits. If you're a unionized firm, I don't know how that's going to affect you. If you are a non-unionized firm with good relations with your employees, I still don't know how that's going to affect you, so I'd like from you some indication--and please avoid what I would consider to be rhetoric, with respect--please give me specifics about how this law is going to affect your operations.
Ms Ciglen: Again, the major concern is the macroeconomic impact. It is the chilling effect on investment and wealth creation in the province.
Small businesses are niche players. They basically manage because they service other businesses. If large, foreign investors or other businesses are deciding they're not going to expand here in Ontario, that they're going to expand somewhere else, it's Ontario small firms that also lose out, because the customers aren't there for them to service and sell to. Our members are doing their best to expand their own bases, actually, out of Ontario, so that their markets are expanding, but a lot of them don't always have that choice. That's what they're primarily concerned about.
The investment decisions that are being made are definitely going to affect their viability, and they're on the edge right now. It's still a very bad situation out there for small business. They're really on the edge. The bankruptcy numbers are not really recovering. The facts we showed where Ontario firms are still cutting back on jobs--in other places in Canada, it has started to settle down a little--there are still cutbacks going on here. They're still really hurting here. This legislation does nothing to help.
1030
Mr Huget: In some of your documents, if you read between the lines, it appears that you at least portray, the opportunity for people to organize as being some kind of economic disaster for the province. Is the position of your federation and your members that of anti-organized labour, or what's your position on organized labour?
Ms Ciglen: No, not at all. As we said in our conclusion, unions are obviously appropriate in certain circumstances, definitely, and everyone should have the absolute freedom of choice whether or not to join a union. The point is that it is when the government comes in with imbalanced legislation that upsets us--Michel was talking about upsetting the delicate balance--that's where the problems arise.
Mr Huget: I'm not quarrelling with you, it's just that if indeed that's your position on organized labour, it's not portrayed that way in many of the things you distribute around the province. It's quite the opposite. It appears that the unionization process is going to threaten the economic situation in Ontario. That's what I read when I read these things.
Ms Swift: That's in the eye of the beholder.
Mr Huget: Oh, it is? I guess you and I should sit down and read this together.
Ms Swift: Our members don't perceive it that way at all, and those are the people we represent here.
Mr Huget: One final point.
The Chair: Mr Huget, if you can make it fast, you can do it. If you can't, you can't.
Mr Huget: I know you spent a lot of time and effort in developing an approach to this legislation and I want you to let me know whether or not this effort of yours has had any negative impact on investment in Ontario.
Ms Swift: Not at all. The notion that we should just be quiet and not tell you about the negative impacts that such a thing would have on the small business community, the major job creator in the province, is absolutely ludicrous. I can't imagine any group that would not point out those kinds of negative impacts if it was threatened, as we are, by this legislation.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business for participating in this process and for its eagerness to share its views with us. You've played an important role.
CARLA LIPSIG-MUMMÉ
The Chair: The next participant is the centre for research on work and society, if the spokesperson for that centre would please have a seat. Tell us your name, and title if you want to, if there is one, and proceed with your submissions.
Dr Carla Lipsig-Mummé: My name is Carla Lipsig-Mummé and I am the director of the centre for research on work and society at York University, but as is our custom, I am presenting this brief in my own name.
When I began to prepare materials for you, I thought that this was the last day of the hearings and that you had heard mostly everything from all over the province.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Mr Chair, on a point of order: I would like to have a quorum call because there don't seem to be enough members here.
The Chair: Mr McGuinty is here, Mr Hayes is here, Mr Offer is here, Mr Ward is here, Mr Hope is here, Ms Murdock is here. Nobody else is here, but that constitutes a quorum--just. Go ahead, ma'am.
Mr Hope: Sorry for the interruption.
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: The document I have handed out, or that has been handed out, is divided into two parts. The first part, to page 5, is a summary. The second part, where I'll begin, is the arguments. I should say right from the outset that I am going to focus on some areas that have not been much focused on, and particularly I am concerned at the way the Quebec experience has just been misrepresented to you. I'm going to go into some detail on what is the larger picture in Quebec, perhaps to offset what you've just gotten, because what you've just gotten is not the picture in Quebec. I'm not going to start there, though.
Why labour reform now? Why go through this politically exhausting practice of reforming? Generally, governments only undertake this modernizing of labour law when it's impossible to avoid it, when the existing laws are shown to be incapable of dealing with a growing number of fundamental problems. Two of those problems we have seen over the last 10 years in Ontario are the following:
First, the majority of new jobs created since the early 1980s have been in part-time, contractual, domiciled or otherwise precarious employment. It's no accident that the proliferation of atypical employment situations and the growth in the numbers and impact of vulnerable workers is linked to the mushroom growth of employment in the weakly unionized service sector, the private service sector, and also in the garage and basement industrial sector.
Second of all, the late 1970s and 1980s have marked the increased recourse of businesses to workplace reorganization of many sorts, which they refer to as "flexibility" and which, in practice, has led to the marginalization of unions and a real decline in private sector union density, as well as, in many cases, the de-skilling of workers. All of this adds up to a return swing of the pendulum. After a generation of social commitment to deepening and broadening the security of working people, the new creativity of business has directed its energies to undoing a generation's work and replacing security with vulnerability, with marginality and with a kind of social Darwinian competitiveness.
Can the traditional methods of labour market regulation and labour legislation cope with these changes: the growth of mom-and-pop stores, the cancerous growth of precarious employment, contracting out, home working, electronic commuting? A number of societies have had to deal with these basic issues: The United States in 1978, Quebec in 1977 and Ontario in 1992.
If the labour market in Ontario seems to have changed beyond recognition, two of the reasons why this could push this government towards modernization might lead to the failure of the modernization effort.
First of all, when you reform a labour code it seems to me you do it because you can't avoid doing it; the problems have been festering for a very long period of time. The danger, when you do that, is that your labour law responds to the problems that have come up already. But if you're not careful, on the day that labour law reform package passes, it's going to be outmoded. So good labour law reform has to predict where the labour market is going for the next five years or maybe for the next 10 years. It's got to be very sure that it's going to be relevant.
The second reason that labour law reform sometimes fails has to do with the compromises that go on when you try to pass something politically.
For a real overhaul of the labour code to be effective, the package of reform proposals has to stay a package. Pierre-Marc Johnson, who was Minister of Labour and Manpower in Quebec when that province introduced its new labour code in 1977, told me recently that his government very deliberately produced a large and controversial package of law reform, and calculated very delicately which elements were essential in making the whole package work and which could be discarded in negotiation with opponents of the reform.
In Ontario, this government's very evident desire to respond to those who are opposed to all labour law reform--and let's not beat around the bush; the presentation I just heard said, "No labour law reform; keep it the way it is; the status quo works"--has led the government possibly to discard key elements in its package, prematurely and maybe damagingly.
This is the starting point from which to evaluate the government's proposed reforms. In this context, we'll be making a threefold argument:
First, very simply, it's more than time that Ontario modernize its labour laws. To fail to do so would be an abdication, on the part of the government, of its responsibility to the community. Given all the changes I've mentioned in terms of the growth of precarious employment and the breakdown of security, a number of the reforms proposed in Bill 40 should be welcomed and endorsed, I hesitate to say unreservedly but almost unreservedly.
But second, there is another series of proposals in this bill, given the social priorities of the government, which were inadequately thought out, some that have holes in them which can be plugged, and then there are silences, issues that are not addressed.
The third argument we want to make here is that the Ontario business community, as we know, has spoken largely and intensely against the reforms proposed in Bill 40. I would submit that its opposition is based on old-fashioned and ultimately suicidal corporate individualism; in other words, each business thinking for itself and not for the good of the sector and not for the good of the provincial economy. The argument that strong unions and collectively organized employers make for economic health and growth is widely spread in the most healthy economies in the world, from Germany through Austria through Sweden and through Japan. Why does it not exist in Ontario? It is in everybody's collective interest, even the employer's, that solid, rooted unionism spread. Look at Germany.
Given the time constraints, the remainder of this submission is going to concentrate on the second and third arguments.
1040
Over the decade since the recession of the early 1980s, the combination of the labour market changes we've talked about has led to a de facto deregulation of the labour market. There are certain issues in that de facto deregulation which cry out for statutory attention. For example, there is access to unionization for the growing number of precariously employed workers in stores, homes, offices and factories, workers whose employment status is no longer effectively protected by present labour law. Second of all, there is the need for statutory regulation of the diverse forms of workplace reorganization that our employers are introducing, sometimes during the life of a collective agreement. Then there is the need to civilize the unionization process.
Finally, something we haven't discussed at all, there is the need for both business and labour to tap into expert research and advice on an ongoing basis in their respective quests to become more effective actors. We're in a continental labour market and a continental economy. Both business and unions need upscaling desperately.
There are a number of proposals which need no revision, and those proposals are those which in fact respond correctly to the objectives set out. I guess I'm dividing it in three ways: (1) What are the objectives? Are they good? (2) How well is the proposal thought out?" (3) Is it tight enough, legally, in terms of its language?
The proposals to tighten first-contract arbitration, to allow composite bargaining units of full-time and part-time employees, to improve successor rights, particularly in the service sector, can be endorsed simply because their objective is to allow workers in vulnerable situations the right to unionize, because this touches the most vulnerable of workers--women, visible minorities, young workers and old workers--and because the language of the proposals allows them to carry out their objectives.
But there is another series of proposals, which while I can endorse the sense of them, have some dangerous holes in the language, haven't been seriously thought out enough and need to be worked on, and those are the ones I want to address myself to. Let me say ahead of time that I'm going to focus both on the Quebec situation and on Australia, because one of the proposals in the bill is based on an Australian experience, although it is implicit.
Let's start with the prohibition on replacement workers. Certainly, it's the most controversial of the proposals in the bill. The proposal we know is modelled on the Quebec Labour Code, which introduced a provision having similar objectives in 1977. It is to be noted, however, that the language in Quebec's 1977 anti-strikebreaker clause was sufficiently loose to cause the government all kinds of problems and to incite creative disregard--which is a polite word--for the law on the part of employers. Ultimately, it forced the government to rewrite the clause in 1983.
Since 1983, everybody would say those problems have been largely eradicated. One of the Conseil du patronat du Québec spokesmen said, "This is no longer an issue; it is a non-issue."
Three issues concerning Bill 40's anti-strikebreaker proposals concern us here: What is it meant to achieve? How well is it worded? How can the government tighten the proposals so as to avoid the problems that Quebec dealt with between 1977 and 1983?
The first, and to date the only, North American regulation forbidding strikebreakers was passed in Quebec in 1977, but when in 1990 the Ontario government began examining the Quebec law, its objective was the same as Quebec's had been 13 years earlier: to civilize labour-management relations.The indication of a prohibition against strikebreakers was meant, of course, to reduce the probability of protracted and possibly violent strikes or lockouts--we are never talking about lockouts, are we; let's mention lockouts as well--but it was also meant to redress the inequality of power between employer and union.
Unlike Quebec in the mid-1970s, the Ontario government had before it the bitter example of the American movement's failure in the late 1970s and 1980s to have permanent replacement workers banned. From this example, the Ontario government realized that banning strikebreakers would then have an impact on more than the strike or lockout. It would also civilize the organizing process and in some sense safeguard the right of workers to join unions in the first place by allowing workers to see unions as vehicles for promoting their self-interest without inevitably embroiling them in overt conflict.
The American experience showed that when not forbidden to do so, employers turned as a matter of course to hiring replacement workers. Union members came to believe that to go out on strike meant the end of their jobs and of their unions, and in many cases they were not wrong. As soon as the workers walked out, the employer hired replacements. At the end of a stipulated period of time, he would ask the board to see whether his workers continued to want to be represented by a union. But the workers polled were the replacement workers whose jobs depended on the defeat of the union. So in cases where strikebreakers could be used, they were used, and to go on strike meant the union was dead in the enterprise.
This is economic intimidation. The concept of using democracy here is the purest hypocrisy. In turn, that equation of strike with job loss and union death led workers to fear joining a union in the first place. The introduction therefore of a prohibition on strikebreakers in Ontario is meant not only to deal with a strike, but to deal with the whole process of access to unionization. The proposal is, as you can see I'm going to say, to be commended.
While it's understandable that employers, sometimes simplistic in their reactions, see this law as a terrible threat, the US experience, coupled with Quebec's decade of successful use of the prohibition, tells us that just the opposite is true.
While it would be an exaggeration to claim that the Quebec business community has come to love the anti-scab law, the Conseil du patronat du Quebec, the principle political arm for the Quebec business community, acknowledges that no single one of its affiliated businesses has blamed the anti-scab law for a plant or company closure since 1977, and while Ghislain Dufour, the president of the Conseil du patronat du Quebec, does not like the law--the citations are available were necessary--he recently said that in certain cases it has been useful.
Let me give you a statistic as well: Marché du travail, Québec. Since 1977, when the law passed, no single year has had as many strikes and lockouts as were had in the five years before the law was passed in Quebec. It is the purest intellectual game to try to compare Quebec's statistics with Ontario's statistics. As well, compare the fact that unionization rates are lower in Quebec than in Ontario by almost 10%. You're looking at historical differences. The strike and lockout statistics, days lost, have never been as high in all the years since the law was passed as they were in the five years before the law.
What preoccupies me, however, with this proposal is not its objectives, but its wording. For example, the prohibition against transferring in, in certain categories of workers, paragraph 73.1(6)2, allows a creative employer to avoid the prohibition by tinkering with the timing of the transfer in. The prohibition against transferring out work in a strike or lockout situation might encourage the use of contractors. In Quebec, between 1977 and 1983, the government found that creative employers established outside "phantom units" whose only purpose was to receive work if a strike was declared.
Equally, in section 73.2, which deals with the permitted use of specified replacement workers, the wording invites misuse. Minimally, some specification of which industries are involved and a tighter delineation of the situations which would allow the employer to use specified replacement workers should be included in the language.
Finally, the proposals do not deal sufficiently with enforcement.
The next point is the establishment of an advisory service. This proposal, which is part I of the bill, has not attracted a lot of attention, but I think it could be of enormous potential value. What it says in the bill is that the Ministry of Labour is given the power to establish a service "to assist employers, trade unions and employees to respond to changes in the workforce, in technology and in the economy."
But beyond specifying that the mandate of this service focuses on several areas, nothing in it tells us what the resources are to be, how interventionist it will be permitted to be and how the service is to work. I think we have to assume that this provision reflects an as yet embryonic project, but it is worthy to be fleshed out.
It has been clearly inspired by the Australian experience since 1983. When Labour won the election, it looked coldly and soberly at the state of the national economy and said: "We are going to have to compete in a very tough global market. We're going to have to compete, and neither the culture of our unions nor the culture of our employers is modern enough." So in Australia, the government created services both for business and for unions which would help them in massively upskilling. They put money into it--the dirty words: "They put money into it." They created a trade development corporation for the companies, they created workplace innovation schemes etc. Time doesn't permit me to go into it, but some of those details are in the document. I think if the government is interested and concerned, it should really flesh out this advisory service.
Finally, the question of silences. This bill does not really deal with the need, the imploding labour market in Ontario, the breakdown of regular work, the fact that what we used to call atypical work isn't atypical at all. The mass of workers, between 60% and 70% of Ontario workers, fall outside effective regulation by ordinary labour laws because of how and where they're employed.
The government flirted with the idea of looking at sectoral bargaining, and then for some reason backed away from it. What I want to suggest--and there are more details in the written brief--is that if the government is interested in being relevant five and 10 years from now with this labour law reform, it's going to have to establish a task force on broader-based or sectoral bargaining which is going to look at the fact that we have moved beyond the Wagner Act model and we can't tinker with it any more.
1050
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Witmer, five minutes, please.
Mrs Witmer: Much obviously is being made of the fact that the Quebec association decided not to proceed with the charter challenge to the Quebec law banning replacement workers. However, I think it's important that we share all the facts here. We just had a presentation from CFIB and I'd like to read from their presentation:
"However, the conseil stated clearly that it is not abandoning its right to challenge the law. It decided not to proceed at this time because the major Quebec unions explicitly stated that to do so would trigger a severe deterioration in the current labour relations climate in Quebec, which the conseil felt the economy could ill afford. The conseil also referred to the slowness of the courts.... The conseil reiterated its firm stand that the ban on replacement workers squarely violates the fundamental right of an employer to pursue its operations during a strike and that it therefore constrains the right to private property implicitly protected by the charter."
In conclusion, this is what they did say, and I think this needs to go on the record:
"The fact that the conseil's thoughtful, long-range decision, made in a spirit of cooperation, was characterized by members of the governing party as a capitulation demonstrates exactly the combative adversarial attitude that permeates the world of collective bargaining and raises so much trepidation in the hearts of employers."
We heard from the gentleman who appeared before you about the high number of lost strike days, the loss of investment in the province of Quebec, and we have certainly heard from them that all is not well and that shortly after the law was passed bankruptcies in Quebec began to outpace Ontario bankruptcies. So I can tell you, according to the gentleman who himself is a resident of Quebec and who met yesterday with the conseil, I believe the example that you gave of its not being concerned is exaggerated.
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: No, I didn't say they weren't concerned. I said nobody said they loved the law, but they had a hotly debated, divisive council where they decided in some cases it is useful. I made very clear to say that they don't love the law, but they have lived with it and they have said it is useful.
Mrs Witmer: They were forced to live with it.
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: Now, when you heard about the bankruptcies and when you heard about the strike days lost, it's simply wrong. It's incorrect from the Marché du travail statistics. You can take the years prior to 1977 and then after 1977. That's documented. I think it's a question of whether you want to see the glass as three quarters full or one quarter empty, and you are choosing one way.
Mrs Witmer: I would suggest that you study the facts yourself.
The Chair: Ms Witmer, you have two more minutes.
Mrs Witmer: No, go ahead.
Mr Hope: Thank you for the presentation and thank you for the clarification for the general public which have just heard the previous presentation about the Quebec law. You very clearly cleared that up for us.
I'd just like to quote currently today from one of my local papers: "The economy keeps rolling due to the efforts of the labour force. The people in the labour force are the backbones of any company and any city." That was a comment made by our economic development officer. I guess when I see this kind of presentation that is being made, it's one that is not helping my community which is being affected.
It's also quoted in here by the national economy, which is called the free trade agreement, which is having a major impact. But he also goes on to make sure that the companies are jumping on stream hiring new people because of the Jobs Ontario Training fund which this government is doing to promote jobs.
I was interested where you're saying that we have to expand and go further, where you're talking about Australia. I was just wondering about your viewpoints dealing with education in itself of our younger people to be more of a balance. Instead of businessizing them in our education system, we should also be labourizing them because most of them come out of the school system as labourers. What are your viewpoints on that?
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: That's a very tall order, asking whether the higher education system should become more technically oriented. Do I understand that?
Mr Hope: Yes.
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: It is certainly valuable that the education system produce well and highly trained people for every kind of job, that there be excellent apprenticeship programs and that there be an attitude towards permanent learning, if you will, for workers to continue to upskill themselves all the way through.
When I look at the Australian situation, what I see is that the government said, "Everybody is going to have to learn and learn a lot"--union leadership, workers, company leadership, managers--"and we're going to have to become, if you will, high value added niche players because we are in an awkward situation." They put creative energies into making that possible, both carrot and stick energies. I'd like to see that kind of thing happen here.
Mr Hope: What really amazes me is the presentation that was done before you. They say there is no political alignment with them. When I see an article of this nature, you know, by the independent business association speaking on behalf of the business community--they talk about unions not being democratic. When I see these kinds of things and then I read what my local paper has to say about some of our local businesses wanting to expand, hiring jobs, looking at the skill-added value, I'm asking myself, "Does this organization speak democratically for its members?"
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: I have to admit that I was surprised to hear the independent business association come out as the defender of the small worker against the big union, but I think this committee is a place where a lot of positions and views are going to be put and certain organizations are going to come with their political views. It's unavoidable. What concerned me terribly was almost an insulting assumption that you wouldn't know about Quebec and that one could get away with misrepresenting Quebec. That worries me when that's done.
Mr Hope: The other area I want to make very clear is that while we're hearing this kind of campaigning going on, again in the local paper which appeared in my riding, it says, "`Union-management relations continue to strengthen,' says the president of the Chatham and District Labour Council." Unions are not getting into this type of campaign. They know we need to change our workforce and they're asking the business community to put down their political agendas and deal with the factual information of skill-added value and increasing our labour force to make sure we can compete in this competitive marketplace.
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: We have a mentality of corporate individualism here. We do not have a sectoral mentality, a mentality of developing economic sectors. We do not have a provincial mentality for the economy, each business for itself. The other things follow, I think, logically if unpleasantly.
The Chair: Mr Huget, very briefly.
Mr Huget: Thank you for your presentation. I had the opportunity in 1986 to go to Australia with a number of people from Canada and indeed most of the Commonwealth countries. The purpose of that exercise was to study some of the structural change that was taking place at that time in Australia around its industrial framework.
I got the view when I was there that the government has a very significant role to play in terms of forcing, if necessary, innovation and cooperation. I don't know how much progress has been made in Australia, but I think it's the legitimate role of government to do that. I see the Canadian government as acting more often than not as an enabler in terms of keeping the system the same.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Thank you for your presentation. We've heard during the course of the past five weeks from a number of people using other jurisdictions, I guess, as comparators. I've come to conclude I have to treat them all as rather suspect.
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: All of them?
Mr McGuinty: All of them. I think we've got to understand that what we're talking about here in terms of an economy is, there's an economic culture, all right, which is rather distinct in Ontario, quite distinct from what was found in Quebec and quite distinct in terms of what is found in the United States and in other jurisdictions throughout the world.
What you have to rely on, from my perspective of course, is what the people within this province are telling us, what their feelings are about this legislation, recognizing as well that the psychological factor is a very fundamental component in the economy. Witness the recession we're having today and the reluctance on the part of many of our consumers to spend, notwithstanding that they still have the income they had earlier.
You'll recall what Mark Twain said about statistics. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. So I'm not sure that your comparisons, just as other comparisons with other jurisdictions, really hold that much weight at the end of the day, and we've got to look to what some of the people on the front lines in this province are telling us. They are telling us they are afraid of Bill 40 and they are very much afraid of the impact it will have on our economy. I think it's unfair to dismiss all of those concerns as being merely hysterical, without any foundation; in fact not based on any genuine sincere feeling.
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: Yes, I think there are some people who are afraid, and I wish that we had a vast amount more of data on the development of the labour market and the business community here up until this time. There are facts that, when you go to prepare a brief like this, aren't there and you'd like to have them, but there are a lot of voices we don't hear from. There are a lot of hidden voices.
1100
For example, let me tell you a story. My daughter is going into ninth grade. In the summer between her fifth and sixth grades she was trying to make plans with her little friend Lien, who is the child of a family of Southeast Asian immigrants, but Lien could make no plans that summer. Her mother sews in a garment factory and the whole family was home sewing all summer. Lien was between fifth and sixth grades, and the youngest child in the family who sewed all summer was between first and second grades. Lien had Sunday off because it was a religious family, but that's all Lien had. She was promised a transistor at the end of the summer; she was given her transistor. They sewed from the first grade to the sixth grade. Maybe we don't hear from those people who desperately want some kind of protection.
Let's also not forget something important. Every major enlightened law that is now on the books, from maternity leave through health benefits through vacation pay, came first by being negotiated in union contracts. So access to unionization is access to some kind of protection.
Mr McGuinty: I'll just make a brief comment and then my colleague here has a question. In fact we have heard from people in the garment worker sector and domestics as well, and one of the shortcomings in Bill 40 is that it will not address many of their concerns.
The Chair: One minute.
Mr Offer: I note that as a professor of labour studies you speak about the need to civilize the unionization process, making the choice free from intimidation and coercion. I don't think there is anybody who disagrees with you. As a professor and from your studies, do you believe there is ever an occasion where a union organizer may, wittingly or unwittingly, intimidate, coerce or misinform a worker while in the throes of a union campaign?
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: Would you define your word "intimidation"?
Mr Offer: Where the worker may feel that he or she is signing something that is something other than what it is, where he thinks there is a need to sign, where he think he is signing a card which will give him a vote, as opposed to the card itself being the vote, and it goes on and on. We've heard concerns--
The Chair: Do you want to respond to that?
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: I'd like to respond to that question. I think in unionization campaigns there is a possibility of intimidation from the employer and there is of course a possibility of intimidation from the union. Sometimes that intimidation can be subtle; sometimes it isn't subtle at all.
Hopefully it doesn't happen often, but the employer who sits his workers down and says, "Now, you have every right to join a union, but you must know, when I calculate my costs, this is one of my oldest plants and it may close," is that intimidation? Is it there? Yes.
But when I said the need to civilize the unionization process, I meant--and we can look at strikes in the United States, because some of them are companies that also operate in Canada--what you have happening when a worker thinks about joining a union and says, "If we ever have to strike, I lose my job; there may be violence, because they're going to bring in strikebreakers," that's what I'm saying. The prohibition on strikebreakers civilizes the entire process from soup to nuts, from the beginning of the unionization process to lockouts and strikes, if that happens.
The Chair: I want to thank the Centre for Research on Work and Society and you, Ms Lipsig-Mummé, for your participation in this process. You've made a valuable contribution. I trust that those people who weren't here during your submission will read the Hansard transcript of what you had to say. Thank you kindly.
Dr Lipsig-Mummé: Merci bien et merci au comité.
NEWMARKET CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce, if these people would please come, have a seat and tell us their names. We've got your written material, which will form an exhibit and be part of the record because of that. Your names, your titles, if any, if you want to, and proceed with what you want to say. Try to save the last half of the half-hour for exchanges and questions, because, as you can see, it's a very valuable part of what's happening here. Go ahead.
Ms Debbie Allen-Cooke: We just have one speaker. Heather's here just to help field questions later. My name is Debbie Allen-Cooke. I'm the second vice-president of the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce and a real estate broker with ReMax Omega Realty in Newmarket. With me is Heather Nicolson-Morrison, manager of the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce and a separate school trustee for Newmarket.
We are pleased to have this opportunity to speak directly to the committee about our concerns and objections to the government proposals. Newmarket is a member within the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, division 18, which is York region. In view of the number of requests to address the committee and the lack of representation from York region's business sector, we're here to express the concerns of our 350 business members and those of the following: East Gwillimbury, 125; Georgina, 103; Aurora, 539; Richmond Hill, 400; Vaughan, 600; Markham, 600; King township, 60, and Whitchurch-Stouffville, 150. In addition to this combined group of 2,927 business members, we also represent all the business enterprises in the region, with a combined workforce of 208,654 workers.
We are neither political scientists nor economic professionals and our knowledge of business and economic issues is on a grass-roots or practical level. Our apprehensions are those of a group which always seems to be hardest hit by any form of government decision or change. As Canada enters into the global economy and as acts such as free trade give us access to a larger marketplace, it is essential that amendments such as you are proposing be adopted with much study and certainty.
While we sympathize with the historical need, genesis and motivation of unions to protect the workers of our province, York region is comprised of at least 75% small businesses, which also need a voice in government, an agency to speak out for them. The chambers of commerce and boards of trade did an advertising campaign in June and July of this year and have a responsibility to express the legitimate concerns of the businesses which responded, not all being chamber members.
What was most worrisome was the lack of information or knowledge to permit unbiased judgement or to measure the impact of this particular bill on their individual businesses. The issues of this bill are too complex to be given such a short period of consultation.
In our region, where business and employees have had relatively good relationships, this bill might become an unwieldy and confrontational element. Our major concerns are as follows: the union certification process, financial implications for smaller businesses, access to private premises, replacement workers, ability to organize and social impact.
Some background: The most rapidly growing industries in York region since 1981 are accommodation services, finance and real estate, retail trade and manufacturing. Relocated industries from out of the region were primarily those of construction, manufacturing and transportation. Part-time employment was more prevalent in the north portion of the region, accounting for almost one quarter of all jobs. The region is not dominated by large establishments.
According to Raymond Twinney, the mayor of Newmarket and regional councillor, these amendments, if passed, would be the "final nail in the coffin for manufacturing in this municipality. It is very competitive now and the businesses will no longer be able to compete."
Certification process: Mr Frank Stronach, who is the largest employer in the region, employing in excess of 10,000 workers, is concerned that the danger of this act is its potential to "suppress democracy." He believes "The world is not perfect. In reality, both employers and union leaders do not always work the best. Corporations do use pressure and intimidation, but so do labour leaders; neither must be tolerated. The solution," he believes, "is secret votes. The use of these ballots would also be used in the process of certification."
This bill could hinder the cooperative performance between employees and employers and in the long term would not be a service to labour, but will kill business with restrictions. No union or government can maintain jobs. Ontario must remain competitive, maintaining and attracting high-paying and skilled positions.
Forcible or imposed unionization is what could occur, which ultimately would be an abuse of personal rights. The admission of petitions once a union has applied for certification would be prohibited and therefore prohibit employees' options of ever changing their minds.
Financial implications for smaller business: These amendments could adversely affect smaller businesses. Higher wages, more demands and the denial of the use of replacement workers could effectively close some businesses. When asked, based on his experience, how much of a financial float businesses have and how long they could survive if their doors were shut, Mr John Cormier, a manager of independent business for the Royal Bank, confirmed that seven out of 10 small businesses over the past five years are underfinanced.
Some owners have mortgaged their homes because there is a delay in funding or they simply do not have adequate funds to set up a business. If put in a strike position and unable to hire replacement workers, these operators will not have the financial resources to absorb the shock, especially after two years of this recessive economy. Like many Canadians who live from paycheque to paycheque, they have no reserves and their survival expectancy during a strike would be minimal.
1110
Mr John Kennedy, regional manager for the Bank of Montreal, when asked the same questions, responded that business reserves are very low and that the timing of a strike could demolish a business. For example, if a union struck at a retail employer's during late November or early December, the action could effectively destroy the year. Seasonal employers, those in construction and tourism, are also at risk.
In order to keep alive, employers would be forced to settle. These settlements would adversely affect the consumer. An example might be that during a strike there would be lessened competition and a natural increase in the cost to the consumer. This would then result in an increased cost of day-to-day business for the employer. To be denied the use of replacement workers during a strike tilts the delicate balance of bargaining power in labour disputes towards unions and will force employers to do anything to avoid a strike.
Mr Bruce Annan, publisher of the Era/Banner and the Liberal and vice-president of Metroland Printing, Publishing and Distributing Ltd, stated that Metroland has about 2,000 employees and that a strike vote by as few as 60 newsroom employees could put the remaining 1,940 people out of work and that publication of the struck papers would cease. The community readers and advertisers would look for alternatives. The bitter irony under the proposed changes could result in a strike paper, published by the employees who forced the shutdown.
Mr Annan's conclusion summarized that: "Those of us whose product is both local and perishable are faced with an impossible scenario: Concede to the union whatever it asks or go out of business. We simply can't function with that sort of gun to our heads."
Access to private premises: The protection of property rights is inherent in our laws. The amendments are so vague as to allow disruption of the public during strikes, and harassment of other employees and customers, even if they are uninvolved. Unions will have the right to enter public malls or municipal buildings and picket in those areas. Would this public access include the Legislature, or perhaps a nuclear power plant? These results must be further researched before a final decision is made.
Reduction of picket line violence was one of the concerns of the minister and his staff, but what of the other forms of violence, like what was recently witnessed in Hamilton, involving the longshoremen?
Strike action is a right, and is meant to be informative. Striking, however, should not be able to shut down a business so it dies, nor should it adversely affect our neighbouring businesses. Mr Matthew Dunn, assistant general manager of the Upper Canada Mall, has serious concerns over the irreparable damage that could be caused to the economy if the amendments are accepted. Allowing unions to organize in an area like the mall would be perceived by the public as a possible intrusion. Quoting statistics from an independent survey done by Environics in October 1991, nearly three quarters, or 72%, of Ontarians said unions organizing retail workers should not be allowed, nor demonstrations by special-interest groups.
Replacement workers: What is the cost to society if fundamental services go on strike? What is an essential service? If groups such as sewage or water workers strike, are they to be replaced? How do we keep operating? Frank Bobesich, director of education for the York region separate school board and secretary-treasurer of the board, sees the amendments as "a very precipitous action, which is premature and possibly dangerous." He believes "We had better get a good fix on what an essential services is." At present, police and nurses are seen in that perspective, but what about school janitors? If they strike and cannot be replaced, after a few weeks a school could be shut down for health reasons alone. Taxpayers will simply not accept this.
It seems the principles of fairness and the balance of power will shift and curtail the ability for discussion between opposing groups.
Ability to organize: Chambers enrol a number of professionals, ie, lawyers and architects. While groups such as the Ontario Association of Architects agree in principle with the amendments, they see, as stated by Mr Brian Watkinson, deputy director of practice of the Ontario Association of Architects, that changes to the OLRA are unnecessary in their profession, but they are unable to assess the impact of these changes on their profession. They also believe that the proposed reforms will have a negative influence on the confidence of potential investors from both within and outside Ontario and, therefore, a negative impact on the industry as a whole.
To allow security guards to join the union of their choice has caused some concern. Mr Les Hunter, manager of a regional security and investigation company, believes that if security guards were allowed to unionize, they should only be permitted to organize a union under the company they work for. He perceives problems in cases where an employee of a security firm has joined a retailer's union, and if negotiation is needed during a strike, the union would be negotiating with the retailer, not the security company. He also sees contractual problems with supplying security during a strike if one is unable to use replacement workers for striking security guards.
Impact: Ernst and Young's economic impact study, which was done for the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, contained the following disturbing figures: 295,000 jobs would be lost as a result of the proposed legislation; $8.8 billion of investment would be lost over a five-year period, and implementation of the changes would cost $8.3 million and require an additional 55 civil servants.
Eldred King, chairman for the region of York, implied the amendments could have a "detrimental effect to employment in the region." His is a philosophical approach. If these amendments are accepted, who is going to generate employment? Businesses which feel intimidated will close shop and others will simply not settle here. Can we survive economically with these conditions?
Some members believe these amendments will lead to a reduction of employees and an increase in consultants as a backlash to them. York region is suffering from a crisis in social service needs. A report titled Addressing the Crisis in Human Services in York Region was presented to the government by the community services council of York region in June 1991.
York region has an estimated population of 525,000 and is still growing. If the region is unable to attract new businesses and to support the expansion of its older business, or if there is a decline in business for any reason, the unemployment problem will reach disastrous levels. Job opportunities are essential to accommodate any type of social restructuring. Higher unemployment, coupled with fewer job opportunities, will entrap more people in the welfare cycle.
Do we really need this legislation? How will it make improvements for labour? Who is promoting these amendments? Will Ontario be perceived as a bad place to invest? Is the timing right for these changes?
The NDP was voted into power in Ontario because the people wanted change. Granted that this act is outdated and change to it is commendable, these proposed amendments are realistically disastrous and somewhat shortsighted. Past experience has demonstrated that the more government interjects itself in the marketplace, the more citizens lose jobs.
Businesses in York region simply request a slowdown in the process and that an independent economic impact study be undertaken. There should be open communication with the workers and business operators of this province, not just consultation on the discussion paper. Remember that if the people are given all the facts, they will vote for what is right.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much for coming forward with your presentation. Along with some of the negative comments we've heard on Bill 40, in the Toronto Star this morning there was an article saying that in the Metro area, ReMax was saying resale of houses has gone up 41% in 1992 over August 1991, which is positive that things are moving a little bit, maybe not as fast as they should.
That's not really a question. I wanted to ask you basically, what would your feeling be if--anybody who has a business can belong to the chamber of commerce. Anybody who's a lawyer can pay lawyers' fees. What would be your reaction if anybody who comes out of school, out of university, would be allowed to join a union, and after a year, if they don't like it in the workforce, if they take a vote of 50% or 60% or 70%, to get rid of it, to decertify? Make it broad in Ontario that anybody who comes out, if there's concern with sexual harassment in the workforce, as one woman brought forward yesterday, health and safety, minority groups, more women involved--what would be your reaction if anybody could buy a membership and belong to the union and then, if they didn't like it after a year, take a vote in the workplace to get rid of it?
1120
Ms Allen-Cooke: I don't know that it would work. Most people when they come out of school have a reason to purchase a membership. They have finished courses and that type of thing. If it was specific to their profession, I'm sure that--there are unions everywhere, but I don't think the availability is there to vote it in and vote it out that easily.
Mr Wood: It happens with doctors. It happens with lawyers. Anybody can open up a store and buy a membership in the chamber of commerce and there are a lot of other organizations. If I want to buy a membership in the Conservative Party, which I probably won't, or the Liberal Party or the NDP, it's available to me. You go out and you pay your fee.
I'm just wondering what you think of that system. If there is sexual harassment in the workplace, as one woman brought out yesterday--severe, in a grocery store. She was given all the dirty jobs, night shift and everything. Finally, she found a union that would organize the place and get around that issue. I'm just curious as to why one sector of people wouldn't be allowed and other sectors are.
Ms Heather Nicolson-Morrison: Democratically, I think it would be better. If you want to choose, fine. If you choose to join a union, that's fine. But if you choose not to, you should still have that right. Nobody has to join a chamber of commerce. That's your choice.
Mr Wood: That's available now for unions as well. They don't have to join.
Ms Nicolson-Morrison: I'm answering your question. I was forced into a union when I first got out of university and I didn't like that because I didn't like the fact that I was being told that to work there I had to belong to a union. It's got to be your choice. But then I realize you could also say in your argument back to me, "Well, then, how can you partake of anything good the union can do for the employees?" That is an argument, but I feel that, democratically, if you choose not to belong to a union, you shouldn't have to.
Mr Wood: There are a number of reasons. There are four main reasons why some modest and minor amendments are being brought forward in Bill 40 and I'll just cover them briefly.
There have been major changes in the workplace and workforce since any major changes were made to the OLRA in 1975, which goes back quite a few years. It's promoting cooperation and partnership, reducing conflicts, streamlining the process and restricting the use of replacement workers on the site, which has led to fatalities and severe injuries, a lot of pain and suffering in the families on both sides, where you've had brothers and sisters who have been encouraged with bonuses to cross the picket line and cause fights.
In our opinion, these modest amendments or proposals being brought forward are going to answer some of the concerns of the people out there who have come forward in large numbers to give us all kinds of examples. They have no way of raising the issues with their bosses in the workplace. I'm just wondering what reaction to that--the group of people that we're saying should have some kind of a lever to deal with those issues.
Ms Allen-Cooke: I agree that in a very large corporation it's very difficult to find the boss, never mind to address any concerns, but in York region, as we indicated in our paper, we're over 75% smaller business and right now, up until today, have very good working relationships with most of the employer-employees. If they have a problem--take, for instance, Mr Frank Stronach. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the name. He has gone out of his way to do for his employees. They have medical, dental, day care, optical, pension. His company has a lot to offer. Sure, sometimes they don't all agree and one of his plants in Windsor is unionized, but a lot of them are not. He's still there. He will talk to his people.
In a larger corporation, I'm sure they have smaller heads you can deal with. I'm not saying that the union does not have a place in the workforce; I just think that with some of the amendments proposed there should be a longer study before it's brought in.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I certainly am pleased that you brought forward the issue with respect to the impact on small business. I think that's an important aspect of these hearings. I think you should be aware that we're hearing concerns not just from the business community but from a variety of other areas. The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies has concerns with this legislation; school boards, municipalities, hydro services, all have concerns about this legislation and its impact on their being able to do what they're responsible for.
I appreciate your bringing forward these concerns. Certainly, I think it's important to key in on the small business aspect, because I think there are a lot of people who say that the small business sector is the sector that creates more new jobs in this province than anything else.
There is no one who would disagree with the fact that workers, if they wish, should have the right to choose to join a union. I don't think that's the issue. I think you've brought out the question that there should be a freedom of choice, a freedom to choose whether they wish or do not wish to join, free from intimidation and coercion. I'd like to get your thoughts on that area of the legislation.
Ms Allen-Cooke: I agree that they should have the choice, and given the choice, I think they will make the right decision, if they have all the information in front of them.
From the businesses we've spoken to--I can't speak from a personal point of view because that's not why I'm here-- I think the concern is that if a group of five or 10 decide they wish to form a union within a small retail business, a jewellery store or something like that, how is that going to affect those people who don't want the union?
If somebody has ongoing problems with one of the heads of a department and decides to strike, is that going to mean the other workers are forced to strike as well? Yes, it does, because if there's a strike, they're not going to come in and work. So the business that can't perform its day-to-day chores for the public, if it doesn't have a good source and a good banker, is in all likelihood going to close, even on short term.
Mr Offer: That, of course, speaks right to the need for an impact study, for the government to conduct a sector-by-sector analysis of what this legislation means to the small business community, the retail sector and the manufacturing sector.
Ms Allen-Cooke: That's correct.
Mr Offer: We've been calling for that for almost a year now, and I find it incredible that the government would not have conducted that type of study.
Ms Allen-Cooke: That's what we're asking for. We believe that will solve all the unknown factors.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation. I very much appreciate the personal experiences you have quoted in the text of your presentation. You ask the question on the final page, "Will Ontario be perceived as a bad place to invest?"
I would just comment that last night I had an opportunity to listen to a CEO who has companies not only in Ontario but also in Michigan. His topic was, "Is Ontario still a good place in which to do business?" I guess what he told us is that unfortunately the perception of Ontario is that it is not a good place to invest. The perception and the reality are somewhat different, but unfortunately, it's the perception. Can you give us any experience you've had with that perception? Have you heard from your community about lost investment opportunities?
Ms Nicolson-Morrison: Someone like Frank Stronach, although I'm not speaking for Mr Stronach, already has some factories stateside and in Mexico. With free trade, a mixture of both, are we going to look at manufacturers who suddenly think--and again, it could be lack of knowledge, but the unions are coming in. These amendments are coming in. I don't by any means, as Mr Wood said, think these are small changes. They're very large changes. The impact is incredible.
Are they going to suddenly get the perception that we're going to be a union-run province and therefore back out? They're going to say: "I don't need this. The investment would be better in Mexico. I can put the factory up, train the workers and not have to worry." That is definitely a perceived problem for us. A lot of it is education, but I don't by any means believe that these changes are small.
1130
Mrs Witmer: No, and unfortunately it's certainly the perception outside of the boundaries of Ontario that these are major changes. Certainly at a time when people are free to invest wherever they wish to and set up their operations, there's no incentive whatsoever.
I appreciate the comments that you made regarding the small business community and the financial implications, because although the government certainly is sincere in its attempt to look at labour law reform and make changes, I don't think the impact of those changes has been given the serious economic consideration that it deserves.
You mention here that higher wages, more demands and the denial of the use of replacement workers could effectively close some businesses. Then you give an example from the manager of the Royal Bank, who tells us that at the present time many businesses simply are underfinanced and bankruptcy is only a day or two away. Could you expand on the particular financial implications of that on the small business community?
Ms Allen-Cooke: In our area we have a lot of shops. We have Upper Canada Mall and in-house are 290-odd stores. However, on Main Street the merchants have small businesses that are family owned, family run, and if a few people--and again, please don't get me wrong; I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a union. But in the event that even a couple, just to be disruptive, chose to form a small union, that could close a business when it counts on day-to-day business for its revenues.
In the last two years our recessive economy has really claimed a lot of businesses. Day in and day out, you just look at the numbers and it's staggering, not only in the city but in our own areas. You go down one street, business today and gone tomorrow. A prime example: a service station owner, which is again a small business, on Leslie Street has been there for years. I pulled in last night to get gas and his pumps are gone, but he was fine the day before. The number just rose by one again.
They've used all their resources, all the glory of the 1980s, all the money they made--unfortunately nobody saves that much--and there's nothing left. They're on a day-to-day basis and there just isn't enough to float even a two-week or a three-week strike.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce, to Debbie Allen-Cooke, second vice-president and member of the policy committee, and to Heather Nicolson-Morrison, BA, BA, MA, manager, Newmarket Chamber of Commerce. We appreciate your interest and your presence here today. Thank you. Take care. Have a safe trip back up the Don Valley and the 400 and whatever.
BRANTFORD AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Brantford and District Labour Council.
Mr Ward: And a fine organization it is.
The Chair: So I've been told many times, not necessarily by people from Brantford, either. Sir, please tell us your name and your title, if any. We've got your written submissions that will form part of the record. Proceed with your comments.
Mr Dave Digout: My name is Dave Digout. I'm an executive member of the Brantford and District Labour Council and chair the political action committee. I'd like to thank you for giving me the symbolic honour of speaking on the last day before Labour Day. It's rather nice.
I'm here today on behalf of the Brantford and District Labour Council to speak on the urgent need for labour reform in this province. As a bit of background, the Brantford and District Labour Council represents about 6,000 workers represented by 36 different unions.
The workers of Brantford are painfully aware of the changes that have gone on in the economy of Ontario in the last 20 years. If union representation is any indication, we've lost 11,000 members of the labour council in the last 10 years. I can list a whole bunch of companies that have disappeared over the last 10 years, and it's really sad.
Since the last changes to the act, which was three governments ago, the economy has been transformed. The number of manufacturing jobs in this province, as a percentage of the jobs, has been reduced, and the number of jobs in the retail and service sectors has increased. Many of these manufacturing jobs were high paying and had very good benefits. Unfortunately, the retail and service sector jobs, which some refer to as "McJobs," don't pay very well. They often have very little or no benefits and the working conditions are less than ideal.
Although there has been some improvement in employment equity within the province, women, visible minorities and handicapped workers are still ghettoized into marginal jobs. Also, many people are forced to work at more than one job, and often both parents are required to work in order to provide for their families. Unfortunately, the free trade agreement and the proposed North American deal are also going to put some pressures on the workers of this province in the next few years, and I think there's going to be need for labour reform in order to help them.
Decent wages, good benefits and proper health and safety standards were achieved in years of struggle by the men and women in the labour movement here in this province. I think workers in Ontario deserve the right to organize to obtain their rights and dignities, and the laws must be changed to reflect the new realities here in Ontario.
One thing I would like to point out is that the purpose clause outlined in section 5 is a small but important step to recognizing this. The current act contains a preamble which merely outlines the reason for the act's existence. The proposed clause explains exactly what the reforms are intended to achieve: recognizing the rights of workers to freely join a trade union and to encourage the collective bargaining process in order to foster a better working environment. Nothing else can be more important.
Increased employee participation in the workplace and improved labour relations will help Ontario, I think, to achieve a vibrant and prosperous economy. It's really important. It is also very important that many workers in Ontario have access to the collective bargaining process. This is accomplished somewhat by the expansion of job categories eligible for worker representation. Domestics, for example, will be able to obtain better wages and benefits in an industry in which--face it--they are not treated very well, not the best working conditions to be in. Unfortunately, a lot of immigrant women get stuck in a domestic job and it's not fun.
Security guards will finally be given a basic right, the right to join the union of their choice. Also, some agricultural workers will be given the right to organize. Unfortunately, many of them, faced with poor working conditions, exposure to hazardous chemicals and a routine little different from that of an assembly line still are not given this choice. I hope the government will redress this imbalance. I understand there's a task force being formed to study this situation. I hope they come up with some good recommendations.
An integral part of the organizing process is being able to get in contact with the workers involved. Obtaining an employee list would go a long way towards resolving this problem. This is not such a radical idea. Mailing lists get bought and sold more easily than hockey cards. I know I receive mailings from organizations and businesses and I have no idea how they got my name. I just wonder how my name got on all these databases. I don't think there's going to be a problem with an invasion of privacy. Unions keep their files very confidential. I'm a union executive, and I've never seen an employee list and I really don't want to see it. I think if the government is going to amend the act even more, it should give unions legal access to these files.
More important to an organizing drive is the ability to talk with workers face to face. For example, the retail sector, which has only 11% of its workers belonging to collective bargaining units, is located in previously inaccessible shopping centres. Yet, as the Eaton's organizing drive of a few years ago indicated, there is a need for union representation in the retail sector.
The amendments outlined in section 11.1 will redress this problem. It allows access to areas normally open to the public. If there is a conflict, the Ontario Labour Relations Board will now be able to quickly adjudicate this impasse. If the union can go talk to the workers and shopping malls are basically becoming the main street of a city now, I think it's reasonable to expect that it can go in there and talk to them without being charged for trespassing or something like that.
Once the organizing drive is in progress, there are a number of ways the Ontario Labour Relations Act can be amended in order to streamline the process and make it as undisruptive as possible.
A good case in point is where I work, Westcan Chromalox. We were organized by the United Electrical Workers in 1989. The allegedly employee-initiated petitions were treated as an unnecessary hindrance and considered ultimately futile. The one person who did try to start a petition left work and wasn't there any more. The dollar payment to indicate a person's acceptance of the union was a bother and an inconvenience. Just signing the card should have been considered sufficient.
1140
Eventually, over 90% of the employees accepted the first contract. I feel and many of my fellow employees feel also that the atmosphere at the plant improved. Both the workers and the management now knew exactly what their rights and duties were according to the contract. It hasn't prevented the company from making good or bad business decisions; it did not prevent Glen Dimplex, an Irish firm, from purchasing the business in 1991. Having a union there has not prevented the company from putting, to be honest, a large amount of money in upgrading facilities so that when everything is going by the end of the year, we're going to be a very efficient and hopefully profitable business. The company can't treat its workers arbitrarily any more, and some open and cooperative communication has resulted.
I think what this episode illustrates is some of the shortcomings of the current act. The Ontario government is taking some steps which should alleviate some of the problems. The money payment is not necessary and can be eliminated. Petitions after an application for certification have always been disruptive and time-consuming, rarely succeed and will be eliminated. I'm glad to see that.
It does not restrict the rights of workers. If they do not want a union, they can talk, they can argue, and when it comes down to it, they can vote against the union. If a majority of the employees don't want it, it's not there. The CAW or the Steelworkers cannot come marching in and say, "You're one of ours now." After all, democracy is what unions are all about.
Signing up 40% of the workers is adequate. Even governments have been elected with less support. However, I fail to understand why the government has refused to reduce the 55% level required for certification. A simple majority, which is common with a number of other groups--to accept a contract, for example, just requires a simple majority--should have been sufficient.
Although it is preferable that contract negotiations be handled directly between the two parties, there are some occasions where the government can intervene to speed up the process, especially in the first-contract phase.
One of the best proposals is section 9.2, giving the Ontario Labour Relations Board the right to certify a bargaining unit if it has found that the true wishes of the employees cannot be determined due to the actions of the employer. No longer will the employer be able to use some of the cheap pressure tactics in order to prevent the workers from uniting. Again, that comes from experience when we were organizing in 1989.
Another good step is removing the discrimination between full- and part-time workers if the union decides they should be combined. Part-time workers have always got the short end of the stick. By joining them with their full-time brothers and sisters, their lot will surely improve.
Combining bargaining units will improve industrial relations. I know in Brantford, the daily newspaper, the Expositor, has five bargaining units represented by three unions. Combining the three which belong to the Southern Ontario News Guild, or even combining all five, is going to speed up the process, and it will save time and money. They don't have to duplicate efforts because they'll have one bargaining unit to deal with. They won't have to deal with five of them.
Speeding up the arbitration procedures will also save time and money. Taking up to 100 days to process a complaint is too long; it leaves too many people hanging on tenterhooks. If they can process them in 30 days, great, it will solve the problem and we can get back to work.
Unfortunately, a small minority of situations, less than 5% of all contract negotiations, deteriorate to the point where the workers feel they have to walk out in order to get a fair settlement. An even smaller minority of employers think they can do an end run around their workers by bringing in replacements. The labour term is "scabs," and I think it's a very appropriate term.
I remember back in 1971 there was a company called Texpak which had a very bitter strike. The company attempted to bring in replacement workers, and almost every day the call would go out, "The cops are coming down to Texpak." We'd all hop on our bikes and we'd ride down there to watch the fun. I can still remember one woman having her leg broken in the ensuing troubles. It is an extremely vivid memory, and it's something that should not happen.
It shouldn't be allowed to happen. It never helps anyone and it gives the company a chance to poison already strained relations with its employees. It forces our brothers and sisters in law enforcement to act against their neighbours and friends when tempers get short. It places the replacement workers in emotional conflict, forcing them to decide whether or not they should steal the livelihood of others. Above all, it places an undue amount of pressure on the workers who are on strike in order to get decent wages, good benefits, proper health and safety standards. Too many workers have already been arrested, injured or even killed because of this loophole, and I think it's about time it was closed.
Strikes may represent only a small part of labour relations, but the government must take action to lessen the tensions. Banning replacement workers is a step in the right direction.
We've heard a lot of talk today about the legislation in Quebec and whether or not it has been effective. If you've seen the statistics--I'm sure you've seen thousands of stats over it--it hasn't significantly decreased the number of workdays lost, but it's an important psychological step because I think it would alleviate the violence on a picket line, because the company cannot bring people in there.
If you see somebody going to take your job, you're going to get upset. We're very lucky that it represents only a small part of industrial relations here in Ontario, and I hope that by not bringing them in it will make it an even smaller minority. It would only be if people get really upset, and I would hope that doesn't happen.
Unfortunately, the government proposals are still inadequate. It allows only a 60% vote on a strike rather than a simple majority before the anti-replacement worker provisions kick in. I know I'm deviating from the text a little bit.
There's also still a lot of work to be done by non-union employees moved to another company location or contracted out. If the workers who are trying to achieve a better life have to go through the financial pain that they're going through in a strike situation, it's only fair that the company has to go through the same pain.
Members of the labour movement in Brantford are saddened rather than angered by the attempts of several apparently responsible organizations and individuals to create a wave of hysteria over the proposed labour reforms. In July, the Brantford Chamber of Commerce instituted a one-week campaign that had a rather lousy radio campaign talking about how jobs are going to be lost, how it's going to destroy the family farm. It got some people upset. Of course the general consensus was that the whole campaign was a wash-out, that they didn't do a very good job.
I also find it inconceivable that so many in the business community still consider unions a threat. If democracy, fairness and dignity are threats, then every man and woman in the labour movement can be considered subversive. Having a union at work can be beneficial.
Women in the workplace now have access to higher-paying jobs because of anti-discrimination clauses in the contract. I know at work we've hired some people to work in some of the higher-paying positions, and the majority of them are women. That's never happened before in that company. As part of the new contract, an anti-discrimination clause was put in. It says that the company cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, racial origin and the like. I think that's one of the effects of that clause.
The labour movement has been in the forefront of the fight for social justice and improving the quality of life here in Ontario. Health and safety standards, public education and a whole number of other issues: The labour movement has always fought for it, and for some reason on a number of issues the corporate sector's fought against it.
I know that in Brantford the labour movement has also been very effective in the social field. We've raised nearly $100,000 for the United Way campaign over the last two years. No other corporation in Brantford has come close. We're hoping that this weekend we can raise even more.
I'll tell you, though, Ontario workers are the best in the world. It seems from some of the discussions here that some people are trying to put down Ontario workers. I'm sure that's not their intent. I'm sure they don't believe that. It's just some of the things they are saying. I can't tell you exactly where I've seen the figures, but I've heard that Ontario workers spend more time at work each week and have less time off on paid vacations than their European counterparts.
There was an article in the Globe and Mail Report on Business magazine a couple of months ago where they were talking about the problems companies were having in the United States and Mexico. They were talking about three-hour siestas that the Mexican workers were taking. When fishing season opened in Georgia, half the workforce was disappearing. That doesn't happen here in Ontario.
Some people argue about the trade unions that are the voice of the workers here in Ontario that their time has passed. But as long as businesses, under the guise of competitiveness, refuse to pay a decent wage, provide a healthy and safe workplace, and treat their workers with a little bit of dignity and fairness, there's always going to be a need for workers to unite and fight for their rights.
Open and cooperative labour relations will create a better atmosphere at work. If they feel they're being treated fairly, they'll work harder, and who knows what kind of economic growth will occur.
I think the Ontario government has taken a big step in recognizing this goal and I think it should go ahead with the proposed labour law reforms. Thank you.
1150
Mr McGuinty: Thank you very much for your presentation. I enjoyed it. Your sincerity shines through. There's one thing I want to touch on which you raised. In here you make a complaint about the 55% level required for certification.
Mr Digout: Right.
Mr McGuinty: You know, it's a damned good question. Why is it that in democracies generally, we look to a simple majority?
Mr Digout: Right.
Mr McGuinty: Why would not an NDP government reduce it to a simple 51%? Good question. The answer is simple: It's because there's a recognition in 55%, an allowance or a safety valve. What's happening here is we're having cards signed, not in a democratic--we're not talking about secret ballots where people sign something in the absence of others and they can decide one way or the other. You're signing a card generally--often--in the presence of another. That is not in keeping with the normal, democratic process of the secret ballot.
I'm going to put a proposal to you and I want to get your reaction to this. Let's bring it down to a simple majority, but use this process: When there's an organizing drive under way, the organizing body, the union, puts the employer on notice. A notice has to be posted advising the workers of their rights, specifically advising that the employer's not allowed to intimidate them, harass them, threaten dismissal, those kinds of things. All they've got to do is sign up just 20%, then they take it to the board. The board confirms they got the 20% and then you have a secret ballot and you get in with your 51%.
Mr Digout: That's interesting. I can tell from personal experience that there was never any intimidation or coercion when I signed my card. A person came up and said, "Dave, we're getting a union." I said, "All right, I'm in." I signed my card and paid my loonie; we had dollar bills back then.
I think what happened with the 55% is that basically the government threw a bone to opponents of the bill. They said, "Okay, we'd like to have 50%." I've seen a couple of policy papers and discussion papers on the majority level and it was 50%. When the final proposal came out it said 55%, so I think it was just a concession. I'd like to see 50%. It's not a major issue but it would have been nice to have seen a simple majority.
The secret ballot is held when the contract is voted on. That's the point of the secret ballot, and especially on the first contract. That vote on the first contract is basically a vote of confidence in the union, so when that contract gets passed, in our case over 90%, I think that indicates support for the new union.
Mr Phillips: I didn't get your last name, Dave; I'm sorry.
Mr Digout: Digout.
Mr Phillips: Thank you. Just so you know where I come from, "The corporate sector has fought so hard against improving the quality of life of the people of Ontario": I don't buy that. I find it unfortunate, sad even, that the labour movement actually believes that. I think it's a symbol to me of the challenge we've got in the economy ahead. I realize you believe that and I realize the labour movement believes that.
Mr Digout: Right.
Mr Phillips: I don't. Some members of the corporate sector, maybe, but I don't see life perhaps as you do as "them and us" and, "They're all bad."
Mr Digout: Neither do I.
Mr Phillips: I'm just making that observation because I want to get to my question. I've made that observation to many in the labour movement. I make the same observation to the business community. If we think that way, we have almost an insurmountable problem in the province, because some of the very best social conscience of this province, believe it or not, belonged to some of the presidents of organizations who worked like crazy to make this a better place and spent thousands of hours of their own time. I just want to make that point because we all have to get rid of this--
The Chair: You'd better ask your question, Mr Phillips.
Mr Phillips: My question, then, is this: We've heard from some people that when you need a union is where you have a bad employer and you need to redress the inequities of a bad employer. I'm wondering if that's where you see the need for a union.
The Chair: Go ahead. Respond to that, please.
Mr Digout: Yes, if--
Mr Phillips: But not--
The Chair: Go ahead, sir.
Mr Phillips: But if it's a good employer, you don't see the need for one, is that--
The Chair: Would you please respond.
Mr Digout: Okay. For one thing, I agree with you on your first point. Often we end up talking past each other rather than at each other. It's unfortunate that some people on both sides use rather heated rhetoric. Okay, I admit I used a bit of heated rhetoric there. Unfortunately, there are all too many people in the corporate sector who oppose things like employment equity and pay equity, and these are important issues.
About your question, though, if a majority of people at a workplace, whether they're being treated well or whether they're being treated badly, want a union, they should be given the right to. Unfortunately, there are a lot of places where workers are subject to harassment, where the health conditions are not the best. If they can join together and say to the company: "Listen, you've got to improve the way you're doing things. We don't like the way you're doing things. We want to work here but you've got to listen to us. You've got to help us improve things. We want to help you. We want to work here. We want this company to make money. We want to make money"--I certainly want the company to make money because I'd like to have my job.
Another example: Right now we're trying to persuade the company to change the process a little bit in how it handles some of the manufacturing and we're not getting anywhere. The company won't listen to us. If we weren't unionized, the people who have been bringing this up would in all likelihood be out the door because of insubordination, but we're dealing with it in the union-management relationship, and we're slowly but surely getting the company to realize that some of the ways it is doing things can be improved. If employees across this province can get together with their company in a structured format, which often happens in a union situation, they can really improve the workplace.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Dave, for your presentation. I guess unfortunately, when we listen to your presentation and some of the ones that have gone today and previous days, it becomes abundantly clear that there's a tremendous amount of polarization on this issue.
This issue is not about putting workers down in this province. I think we have one of the most effective workforces in the entire world. In fact the speaker I heard last night told me exactly that. He said whether that you have a unionized or a non-unionized workplace, the workers he has in both of those arenas produce for him in the same way. He said what is key today, if you're going to survive, is that workers and management work effectively together. So that's not the issue. and the issue is not about whether or not it's good to have a union. Obviously, the issue is that people need to be free to be able to choose a union and need to be provided with all the information.
I'd like to talk to you about the process. I believe that when Bob Rae came into power two years ago, he had a wonderful opportunity to bring management and workers together. In fact, he had a historic opportunity no other Premier has ever had. Unfortunately, the process he used to introduce Bill 40 was such that there was not a tripartite discussion process. He didn't bring people together and say, "We have a problem; how can we solve it?" and then allow the parties, through consensus, to arrive at solutions.
Why was that opportunity missed? Now is the time we need to set aside the differences between workers and management, because I'll tell you, this legislation isn't going to create one new job.
Mr Wood: It's not intended to. It's intended to make things fair.
Mr Digout: That's right. I have to disagree with you on the consultation process. I first saw the party policy in March 1990. I've seen the original Ministry of Labour working paper from November 1991. There were discussions in the winter and spring of 1992. This committee has been going on for five weeks now. I think the government has received plenty of input from numerous groups on the pros and cons of Bill 40. They've been consulting with people till it must be coming out of their hair. To be honest, I think the process has gone on too long. The government was installed in October 1990. I know people who have been working on this bill since then. It should have been in last year at the minimum.
1200
Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, what's happened is the government might have gone through a supposed consultation process; however, we're still dealing with the same union-driven agenda and we don't see any input from anyone else. Whether it be the municipalities, the children's aid societies, the school boards or individual workers, we're still dealing with the same agenda. So it's one thing to listen, but I think if you have a true consultation process you need to incorporate the views of all of the participants. That's why people feel frustrated, because that has not happened.
Mr Digout: If this were a union-driven agenda, this bill would not look the same. I've seen labour proposals that have disappeared from this bill because the government has listened to the business community and said: "Okay, this was our original proposal. Yes, we can see why it wouldn't work or why there would be some problems, so we'll modify it a little bit." Believe me, if the Ontario Federation of Labour had written this bill, it would not be the same. The government has done a very good job on consulting and amending its proposals.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Dave, I'd like to thank you for coming and giving a fine presentation on behalf of the Brantford and District Labour Council. You made a statement that if this bill had been drafted strictly by trade union representatives, it would look far different than how it looks today. You're suggesting that we as a government have tried to strike that balance between business concerns and employee wishes or trade union requests. Is that a fair statement, that from your point of view the bill has been watered down to deal with some of business's concerns?
Mr Digout: No, not watered down. What they've done is they've listened to other constituencies and incorporated some of their ideas and beliefs into the legislation. Some people would say watered down, but I'd say changed; they have done a fairly good job of consulting with people.
Mr Ward: Your workplace has been unionized for how long?
Mr Digout: Just about three years.
Mr Ward: There has been an inference by critics of Bill 40 that when employees become certified to have a trade union represent them there is a sense of irresponsibility on the part of the employees when it comes to bargaining a collective agreement with their employer. For the benefit of this committee and the people of Ontario, can you run through the process that your workplace uses when you begin to negotiate a new collective agreement with your employer?
Mr Digout: We just negotiated a contract in March. In January we had a union meeting where the executive said, "Okay, what kind of ideas have you got which can be included in the new contract?" There were ideas going left and right. They must have received three dozen suggestions on how to improve the contract. Then the negotiating committee was formed and it negotiated with the company. Admittedly, they had to keep some of the negotiations confidential because, as they said, the problem is that you get rumours going around and it throws the whole process out of whack.
The agreement was reached in March 1992. We had a special meeting of the employees where we were given the changes to the contract. We discussed it for two or two and a half hours. We received 6% over two years. It's not the best, but it's actually running a bit ahead of contract settlements in the industry. We were kept well informed by our negotiating committee. They were willing to listen to us. I was certainly satisfied with the way the process went.
Mr Ward: The labour movement has a rich history in Brantford, from the formation of the International Moulders Union in the late 1800s right up to the 1990s. I recall that it was the initiative of Bill Humble, the president of the labour council in the early 1960s, that started the fund-raising drive to build our very fine civic centre, which was opened in 1967, centennial year. I don't think that civic centre would be there if it wasn't for the initiative of organized labour. You, representing the public utilities commission in ward 1--
Mr Digout: A politician like yourself.
Mr Ward: Trade unionists are involved in community committees, and I understand--I think my time's almost stopped, Mr Chair--that there's a big weekend planned by the labour council for Labour Day. As part of the United Way fund-raising, perhaps you'd like to tell us about this weekend for the people of Ontario. They may want to come and visit our community.
The Chair: Let him tell us, Mr Ward.
Mr Digout: Gee, Brad, thanks for the plug. Well, this weekend is the kickoff of the United Way 1992 campaign. They're combining with the labour council for the Labour Day weekend because the labour council has also been so closely involved with it.
On Saturday we're having our fifth annual tug-of-war contest, face painters, clowns, a couple of players from the Brantford Smoke, from the Cornell hockey league, politicians' dunk tanks--I hope you're going to go into that, Brad--
Mr Hope: Kormos is.
Mr Digout: --and Saturday night we're having a comedy cabaret. We're holding it at Icomm, which is the new centre for telecommunications. It's a telecommunications discovery centre that's being built there.
There's the water theme park in Brantford, which the labour council has booked free for the children of Brantford for the entire day Sunday.
Mr Wood: Free?
Mr Digout: Free. Hopefully, the weather will be nice so we'll have thousands of kids there and the labour council will be run ragged trying to take care of them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Digout. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have politicians in the comedy cabaret than the dunk tank. But in any event, I want to thank you, sir, and the Brantford and District Labour Council for your participation in this process. You've played an important role and you've spoken effectively on behalf of your membership.
I, of course, will be in Brantford on Saturday, September 5, starting at 9 o'clock at the Waterfront Park for the annual Labour Day picnic fund-raiser for the United Way, as I was last year. I look forward to that and meeting you and other Brantfordites then. Thank you kindly, sir.
Mr Digout: Thank you. I apologize for talking too fast.
The Chair: Take care. Have a safe trip back.
Mr Offer: Yesterday, Mr Chair, there was a deferral of a vote on my motion to this point in time. I call for the vote.
The Chair: There was a motion moved yesterday by Mr Offer.
Mrs Witmer: Mr Kormos, I would like to move an amendment to that motion. My amendment would be that during those two weeks of extended hearings I would want at least some of that time spent on hearings in the riding of Waterloo North.
The Chair: A rather parochial amendment, but valid none the less. I guess the question at this point is to Mr Offer as to whether or not he wants to incorporate that amendment. Go ahead.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, I have no problem, but I would also like to indicate that my motion was not specific to a particular place. That could be discussed and decided upon by the subcommittee. The preamble to my motion spoke about the number of presentations we heard in committee as opposed to those that were requested, but it was not limited to those particular cities. We've been to a number of cities and there are a number of cities which we still have not been to.
The Chair: Ms Witmer, do you want to speak to the Waterloo North amendment?
Mrs Witmer: I think it's extremely important that the hearings be held in my community. Certainly, I would encourage the subcommittee, if it's not put forward here, to give very serious consideration to having the hearings in Waterloo North for some of the time. I'd really like an opportunity to vote on that particular issue.
The Chair: Would that be during Oktoberfest?
Mrs Witmer: I'll tell you, last night the invitation was extended to everybody to come and participate.
The Chair: Any other discussion regarding Ms Witmer's Waterloo North amendment? All those in favour of Ms Witmer's Waterloo North amendment, please raise their hands. All those opposed? The amendment is defeated.
We now move to Mr Offer's motion, a copy of which was distributed yesterday.
Mr Offer: A recorded vote.
The committee divided on Mr Offer's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes--5
McGuinty, Offer, Phillips, Turnbull, Witmer.
Nays--6
Hayes, Hope, Huget, Murdock (Sudbury), Ward (Brantford), Wood.
The Chair: Mr Offer, you posed some questions to Ministry of Labour staff. I understand that a staff person is here, prepared to respond to those. Please go ahead.
Ms Beverly Burns: Good morning. Beverly Burns. I believe the question was about the appointment of Mr Victor Pathe as deputy minister. He has been appointed deputy minister of labour management services, which is the old industrial relations division of the Ministry of Labour. It's comprised of the office of mediation, the office of arbitration and the office of collective bargaining information.
The ministry has created labour management services to be an arm's-length entity from the ministry to preserve the service's independence and neutrality when dealing with parties who are bargaining, so that mediators who are sent in can maintain a more neutral stance. It's not reflective of the work organization service that's in the bill.
The Chair: Mr Offer, is that satisfactory?
Mr Offer: I thank you for that clarification.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Burns. Thank you kindly. We're recessed till--
Mr Ward: I have a request of legislative research.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Ward: We had a presentation from the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, and from that presentation we gathered that membership was compulsory to the association if you wanted to be a professional engineer in Ontario. I would like legislative research to review other professional organizations to see, if that is common, where compulsory fees are paid.
The Chair: You're restricting that to the province of Ontario?
Mr Ward: Province of Ontario.
The Chair: That's noted. Yes, sir?
Mr Phillips: If I might, on a point of information, we heard this morning about some feeling by one of the groups that there may be a study in MITT. I wonder if we mightn't send a letter to the minister asking if there's been any analysis done on the impact on the Ontario economy or on jobs or on Ontario industry as a result of any amendments planned for the Labour Relations Act.
The Chair: You're suggesting that the committee write to the minister making that inquiry. There's agreement in that regard.
The Chair: Recessed till 1:30.
The committee recessed at 1212.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1330.
The Chair: It's 1:30 and we're going to resume these hearings. The first participant this afternoon is the Retail Council of Canada.
I would ask people to note that there is simultaneous French-language translation taking place, obviously available to people who are watching this on the French-language cable station. At the same time, as on other occasions when there's French-language translation, receiving devices and earphones are available to people who are spectators or who are participants on the panel. One of the concerns many people have had is that although these are available, it isn't advertised anywhere in the area of the committee room, and it isn't advertised at the point of access to the committee room--the simple fact that French-language translation is available and that devices are available--by way of, for instance, a sign. That would certainly be a valuable thing.
I've also been made aware, and my own use of the receiver indicates, of some bad reception, some very defective reception. That could well be due to the fact that people other than the technicians who are familiar with the equipment are required to handle them, to store them and to place them aside. I would think that permanent storage of at least some of these receiving units within the Amethyst Room, so that they would always be available, would be an appropriate thing; similarly, the requirement that all these units be maintained by the equipment technicians so that they would be cared for properly and so that defects could be detected. Again, that point has been made to me and I endorse it wholeheartedly.
It would be more than proper for whoever is responsible for these things, and I suppose knowing that occasionally whips and House leaders read these transcripts, to take care of that at the earliest opportunity.
RETAIL COUNCIL OF CANADA
The Chair: Having said that, welcome, gentlemen. Please tell us your names and your titles, if any. We've got 30 minutes. Please try to save the last 15 minutes for exchanges. Go ahead.
Mr Alisdair McKichan: My name is Alisdair McKichan. I am president of Retail Council of Canada. I'm accompanied by Peter Woolford, who is vice-president of Retail Council of Canada.
We are pleased, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, to have this opportunity to represent the views and advice of the retail trade to the committee. As members of the committee will know, the retail trade is a major part of the Ontario economy, providing, in fact, about one eighth of the jobs in the province. Retail council's direct members are representative of virtually every sector of the trade and account for something over 60% in volume of Canada's and indeed Ontario's retail store sales volume. Our sister association, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, also supports the views presented in this submission.
Our concerns in relation to this legislation relate not only to its impact on retailing or on trade, but indeed to the Ontario economy as a whole. In my remarks, I'd like both to make some general observations about the bill and to note some of the concerns we have with specific provisions of the legislation. I shall attempt, in a few minutes, to encapsulate the major points we make in our written submission.
First, on the issue of consultation, our council has a tradition, and indeed a history, of working responsibly with governments and other interested parties on public policy issues. We regret deeply that the government has refused repeated requests from us and other representatives of the business community for meaningful consultation among the interested parties. We are afraid the business community has been virtually disfranchised on this issue. The resulting acrimonious public debate has, we believe, only served to separate the parties further.
I would like to say a word on the impact on the economy. The health of the retail trade, it's not any surprise, depends heavily on the performance of the economy as whole. As it prospers, so retailing prospers. This harmful bill could not come at a worse time for this trade. Thousands of retail stores have gone bankrupt or gone out of business in the current downturn and the slow recovery. At least 73,000 retailing jobs have been lost in the months since 1990.
We are deeply worried by the warnings from other sectors that the bill will cause a permanent loss of jobs and investment in other sectors. As you know, several influential Japanese and European sources have identified the government of Ontario, whether right or wrong, as a pro-union, anti-business administration. We understand that senior government officials, who met with executives from a number of major US firms to explain the proposals, heard a uniformly and entirely negative reaction from that source.
In the face of so much evidence about the economic costs of the bill, the government's refusal to perform meaningful economic analysis of the proposed changes is, we believe, unacceptable. An impartial study of the economic impact of the changes must, in our view, be undertaken. The government's refusal to do a study is also in direct conflict with the unanimous recommendation of the legislative committee on cross-border shopping, a committee of this body, that the government not undertake any measures that would worsen the competitive position of the province's retail trade. We believe this legislation certainly would worsen that position and exacerbate a problem which is a huge one and is causing great distress within our industry.
Despite our deep misgivings about the impact of the legislation, we have identified the changes that we view as most damaging to the trade, and we've suggested alternative solutions.
First of all, in the purpose clause, we believe the Ontario Labour Relations Act should have two objectives only: first, to establish a fair opportunity for employees who want to join a union to decide democratically to do so, and second, to establish fair, efficient and effective relations between unionized employees and their management.
In our view, the proposed purpose clause would institute a systemic bias in favour of unions and against management. To correct this, we have offered some suggestions for drafting changes in our submission. The first purpose should be amended to read as follows:
"1. To ensure that workers have freedom of choice to join and be represented by a trade union and to participate in the lawful activities of the union."
Second, the change we suggest is:
"2. To improve the process of collective bargaining so as to enhance,
"i. the ability of employers and employees to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment."
I'm turning now to organizing issues. The proposals to assist unions in their organizing efforts would have the effect of trading off the rights and interests of the individual employee for the interests of the union and its management. The changes strip away the opportunity for employees to inform themselves, to reflect on the important decision they are to make and to discuss it among themselves. Given the current practice of union organizers operating in secret, some employees might not even become aware of the organizing drive until the application has actually been made. This is especially likely in retail operations where, because of shift scheduling, only a small portion of a relatively large staff is likely to be present at any one time. Those who do not hear about the campaign would be effectively disfranchised.
The changes with respect to organizing would also have the effect of preventing the employer from having any involvement in the certification process. Employers have a right, under section 64 of the act, to express their views, and this right must not be removed surreptitiously through process changes.
The best interests of both employees and employers are served by an open, fair discussion and a decision-making process. The best way to do this is through a secret ballot, preceded by the opportunity for employees to inform themselves on the issue.
The process, as we see it, should include a number of elements: A relatively small number of signed union cards would be all that was required to start the process, and we don't see, in this context, the necessity for a membership fee. The union would openly notify all employees of the intent to organize. Information from both the union and the employer would be distributed to all employees, under OLRB guidelines, by the employer. The union would continue to be free to contact employees off the employer's premises. After a set period of time, supervised secret ballots would be held. We believe that process would be open, democratic and fair.
1340
Let me turn to replacement workers. The ban on replacement workers is an especially powerful tool to enable unions to dominate retail firms in particular. The management cadre in any location of a retail operation is small, so it would be likely impossible to maintain operations. For a business like retailing, closure of a store for even a short time can mean permanent loss of customers and often, as a result, the closure of the store or even the bankruptcy of the business. We question: Is that the true intention of the legislation?
The retail council's strong advice is to continue to permit the use of replacement workers. If the government is determined to strengthen union power, it must allow an employer to have some limited defence. Employers with operations at more than one location should be able to bring employees in from other locations and the right of non-striking employees to refuse to do work should be removed. Government, employer and union representatives, we believe, should work together to develop some possible alternatives for single-site employees which present particular problems and also particular hazards.
On the consolidation of bargaining units, the proposal to permit consolidation of bargaining units would improve union power and efficiency, but only at the cost of limiting the ability of employees at one location to make their own decisions. This concern is particularly important in retailing where within a region there can be a number of commonly owned but separate facilities, each with a distinct functional characteristic and a distinct style of operation.
The employer also loses because consolidation enables the union to control all the locations that might serve as selling units or act as a backup within the company. In the distribution business, where the flow of goods is essential to the survival of the firm, this would leave the firm helpless in the face of union pressure. We recommend that these changes be withdrawn.
On the access to an arbitrator, just as it's the union's responsibility to bargain on behalf of its members, so it's the responsibility of management to bargain on behalf of the firm. Automatic access to an arbitrator seriously interferes with the ability of management to meet its responsibilities and gives the union an extraordinary incentive not to settle within the 30-day period, as it virtually guarantees increased wages and benefits. In a very competitive industry like retailing, the consequence is almost certainly reduced employment, reduced hours and quite possibly the closure of stores.
The current legislation ensures that if there is wrongdoing on the part of either party in the negotiation, an arbitrator can be called in. This system has an indisputable virtue, in our view: It works.
If the government really believes there is insufficient recourse to arbitration in first-contract situations, it would be appropriate to reconsider the grounds under which the rules are triggered.
Let me deal with picketing on third-party premises. Merchants spend extensive effort and money to create an atmosphere in their stores that attracts customers and makes them feel comfortable. The amendments to permit picketing in the common areas of shopping malls give unions the power and right to disrupt this atmosphere. More seriously, picketing could affect the business of neighbouring stores or even the whole mall. These businesses are likely to bring pressure to force an employer to settle with the union at virtually any cost and without regard to the rights or wrongs of the situation.
Retailers are also concerned about the impact on public safety of introducing a controversial action into the closed area of a shopping mall. We've seen some evidence in this city recently of what can happen when there is a disturbance in such a confined and hazardous area. Public opinion research shows that the majority of the public is opposed to picketing in malls.
On security guards, theft of merchandise or money by employees is a $2-million-a-day problem for retailing. Retailers cannot afford to have the effectiveness of their internal loss prevention staff compromised by a conflict of interest between loyalty to the firm on the one hand and fellow feeling for union brothers and sisters on the other.
If the government is determined to increase market opportunities for unions in the security area, we believe it should stipulate that these employees could not join a union which represents other employees in that same firm.
To conclude, the comments and recommendations offered in this submission are intended to assist in improving what we believe to be a seriously flawed, indeed a dangerous piece of legislation, which currently is focused solely on improving the power and position of labour unions. Our first preference continues to be the development of a balanced, fair set of proposals through constructive consultation among representatives of management, labour and the government.
We do not believe that current legislation is seriously flawed, but if there are better ways to achieve fairness and preserve an individual's freedom to make informed decisions, our members have been and will be open-minded. It's only because of the failure of the discussion process up to now that we have developed, from the point of view of retail employers, changes that we believe are needed to achieve a minimum of fairness and practicality.
There should be no doubt at all that these changes are essential if the bill is to be moved forward. If they are not implemented, then our advice to members is to defeat the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Four and a half minutes per caucus. Ms Witmer, please.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. We really do appreciate the unique perspective you bring from the retailing business. You talk about replacement workers in here and you argue for the continued use of the replacement worker. Could you tell us why you feel this is absolutely essential?
Mr McKichan: Basically because experience shows that retail stores are not capable of taking a closedown situation for any length of time without a serious loss of business and, in many cases, the actual closure of the store. Customers are fickle; they change their habits very readily. If they can't get served in one store, they'll go to another. They lose the habit of going to that store and the loss of business is tremendous and lasting.
Mrs Witmer: So customer loyalty doesn't last very long if a store is closed.
Mr McKichan: That's right.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is with respect to first-contract arbitration. It seems to me that the unions would have no desire to come to any agreement in that 30 days. They would sooner go to first-contract arbitration. I'm most concerned that this legislation does not include a directive to the arbitrators that they must take into account the economic situation of the company in arriving at any settlement. Could you comment on that?
Mr McKichan: That's also of extreme concern to us, because obviously the union has nothing to lose but everything to gain by deliberately aiming for an arbitrated settlement. If the arbitrator is simply asked to weigh the rights between the parties, the tendency will be to split whatever difference there is, although that division may be sufficient to drive the store out of business.
That's by no means a fanciful prediction in these days when a high percentage of all the stores in Ontario not only are facing competition from their colleagues in the business in Canada but are facing extreme competition from the US outlets, where we know the operating costs are considerably lower than in Canada.
Mr Turnbull: And the taxes are considerably lower, yes.
Mr McKichan: I'm considering that as part of the operating costs.
Mr Turnbull: Turning to third-party property picketing, and I'm particularly thinking of shopping plazas when I think of this, it would seem to me that--and we have to accept that the government believes this when it suggests it is in some way going to cut down on picket line violence by not having replacement workers--given the fact that you've already stated essentially that most of your operations would be closed down if there were no replacement workers, I would say the question is, why would picketing still be allowed if essentially these operations are going to be closed down? Why would you allow it on third-party property?
Mr McKichan: If the operation can't operate, pickets become kind of meaningless, in my view.
Mr Turnbull: Exactly.
Mr McKichan: We do point out the other hazards of pickets within third-party property, because shopping malls tend to be in closed, confined places. If there are any suggestions of violence, it occurs in the worst possible surroundings: surrounded by plate glass, surrounded by narrow entrances, places where crowds can get trapped. As we have seen and as I said, in the last few months there have been incidents in Toronto which have been extremely hazardous and extremely upsetting for the people involved.
The Chair: Mr Hayes. Please leave some time for Ms Murdock.
1350
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Thank you for your presentation. There's been a lot of discussion regarding intimidation, coercion, threatening or what have you for workers who wanted or indicated that they wanted to join unions. In some areas we've had some specific cases of this, but one presentation was made to us last week in Ottawa with the retail workers and the department store union which--actually it refers to the Bay, and of course you're representing the Bay. Its document here says the "Bay Ontario Union Avoidance Action Plan."
There are some things in here like union-avoidance tactics: identify potential inside organizers and isolate them; keep them on the same shift, for example. Some other areas here: deny posting space; list the names, numbers, addresses and related information; remind employees of good things that the company is now doing for them, and it's got in brackets, "but no threats"; give some examples, like wages compared to union wages, then in brackets it says, "if favourable."
Even though some people may say this may not be intimidating--the issue of isolating workers and keeping them from talking to the people in the cafeteria or phoning them up and discussing about signing union cards--some people would say that really would be intimidation or interference. I guess my question to you would be, are there other places you represent that--I'm hoping this kind of a document is not a trend.
Mr McKichan: I think the responsible employers are anxious to avoid intimidation both by employers and by union members. As we see it, the best way of ensuring that this doesn't occur is to allow employees to make their decisions in private, in secret where no one knows what their decision will be, where they can fully express their opinions. We think very, very earnestly that we should strive for that situation in this legislation because that would eliminate all the questions of intimidation and I can't think of a better way of achieving that end.
Mr Hayes: Do you feel restricting a person or an individual on a shift or isolating him from other workers would not be a form of intimidation?
Mr McKichan: It seems to me that probably intimidation occurs on both sides. I'm sure there is as much union intimidation as there is, if any, employer intimidation.
Mr Hayes: We haven't had any really specific cases of that, though. We have the other way.
Mr McKichan: No, but nor can I speak to any specific cases on the other side. It seems to me that any situation like that is probably very much related to the situation whereby people's decisions are known and broadcast around. It seems to me this is at least as private an issue as that in which a vote is cast for a member of Parliament and it should be regarded with as much seriousness.
Goodness knows, a much bigger change in an individual's life can occur through the determination of whether to have a union than to elect a particular political party. I can't think of anything, as far as the individual is concerned, that is more important. I can't think of anything that's as much deserving of sanctity of that particular decision as casting that vote. It defeats me why we should not treat it with at least as much seriousness.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I know I have very little time, so I'll try and be quick. Actually, it's led nicely into the question I wanted. Hello, Peter, it's good to see you again.
It's the mandatory secret ballot vote and the point that you just raised in terms of electing members of Parliament, provincial, federal, municipal leaders or whatever. Two things: One, you're electing them knowing they are going to govern you for at least a period of time whereas the union, first of all, is simply a representation vote; two, in a normal general election of any kind, the votes are cast on a certain day and counted the same day.
We have heard cases here in the past five weeks where, in some instances, it's been 18 months before a certification vote because, as you know, anything under 55%, between 45% and 55%, has to have a certification vote. Those certification votes have taken as much as 18 months to two years in some instances to be counted. So the question is, where is the democracy, which has been argued faithfully? Where is it?
Mr McKichan: I'm sure it's within the wits of the legislators to devise a system of balloting and voting and counting that can be as expeditious as that governing provincial or federal elections, and I would certainly argue strongly in favour of that.
Mr Phillips: Thank you for the presentation. I appreciate the council's advice. I'll get to a question, but just as an observation almost for the retail council, this is the final day of five weeks of hearings and it's been, I think, an eye-opener for those who have been on the committee.
The Premier talks about the future of the province being linked to new partnerships between working people and the employers, yet I think, without exception, the union leadership who have come here before us have almost a loathing for the business leadership. I don't think a presentation has gone by without a comment from--the labour council of Brantford this morning said the labour movement has fought for improvement in the quality of life for the people of Ontario, ideas the corporate sector has fought so hard against. Yesterday we heard from the president of OPSEU, saying that the business community are simply spoiled crybabies.
That's very disappointing to me, because if we're going to have partnerships, I think there should be some mutual respect on each side, but it's clear that the labour leadership believes that the business community is not to be trusted.
My question really to you is this: This bill is going to pass. Hopefully there are some amendments, but it's going to pass. If indeed the future of our province rests on partnerships between working people and employers and government, can you give us any indication of how well the partnership is going to function in the months ahead after this bill is passed?
Mr McKichan: If the bill passes in its present form, we have the worst possible apprehensions about the atmosphere for management-labour relations. I think this bill will do more to destroy the quality of management-labour relations than any piece of legislation we've seen in Ontario in recorded history perhaps, or at least within our lifetimes. I think it would be terribly destructive. I think it's a tragedy.
The province is facing the most difficult period in its history as it adjusts to the new realities of world trade. If we do that going into it with this deep cleft and schism between management and labour, we're sealing our own fate and we're doing it in the worst possible way, we're absolutely in a self-destructive mode. I would urge the members of this committee to reflect that view, to ponder that view and realize what's ahead of us, and it's grim. It's grim for this industry, it's grim for the employees in the industries that service us, and I hope that before it's too late, we have a second thought.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation.
The Chair: More briefly than Ms Murdock.
Mr Offer: Third-party picketing: It applies to something much broader than the mall setting. It applies to licensing within the mall. Share with us your thoughts on the impact of that intrusion.
Mr McKichan: First of all, it does have an effect well beyond the individual business that is being picketed. I think it's true to say the average citizen, as his first priority in life, wants to avoid hassle, wants to avoid violence, wants to avoid destruction, and even wants to avoid embarrassment. Pickets appearing anywhere in a mall setting or in other types of shopping situations discourage customers from going near that area, whether it's in a mall or in a street setting.
I fear that not only will there be economic loss suffered by the business being the subject of labour dispute but also by the neighbours of that business and of course by the landlord who shares in the business. That's a reality of life and it's one of the reasons we're so concerned about it.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for speaking on behalf of the Retail Council of Canada and presenting its views here today. You've played an important part in this process and the committee is grateful to you. Take care.
Mr McKichan: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
1400
LONDON CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA
The Chair: The next participant is the church in society committee of the London Conference of the United Church of Canada. Please come forward, have a seat, tell us your name and your title, if any, and carry on with your submission.
Mr Timothy Dayfoot: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My name is Reverend Timothy Dayfoot. I was asked a few moments ago if there was a title connected to my name, and because I wasn't quite on top of things, I said no. It is Reverend Timothy Dayfoot. Turning to the submission, has it been distributed to all the members? I'll start, if I can, just by reading the submission that I would like to make.
I speak to you today as the chairperson of the church in society committee of the London Conference of the United Church of Canada. I thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation and written submission in response to Bill 40, the government's proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act.
In speaking to you today, I would like to give you an overview of what the church has said with respect to labour-management relations in our society. I would like to show you that the United Church of Canada has, in the past, supported the overall direction which is being taken by Bill 40, the amendments currently being proposed to the Labour Relations Act. That is the direction which allows workers greater participation in trade unions and free collective bargaining.
The United Church of Canada has long been intimately involved with the struggle for the rights of labour and the response of the community to issues raised by labour disputes. Fundamental policy was established in the 1930s and 1940s, the first decades of our church's life.
The United Church's defence of the right to collective bargaining developed early in our history. When it was asked by the general council, which is the United Church of Canada's highest court, to report on the church and industry, our church's board of evangelism and social service stated in 1932 that the cause of evil and maladjustment in the workplace may lie in the economic structure as well as in personal character. Christianity can only be made complete by the rectifying of both.
The report of the commission on Christianizing the social order from the general council argued in 1934, "It is essential that wage earners and employers, while the present conditions of industry exist, should bargain on equal terms through persons freely chosen by each group." The commission stated it believed that the threat to the rights of the "ordinary man"--the word it used, although I would say "person"--"lies in the fact that undue economic power is possessed by a few individuals." Collective bargaining appeared to answer this imbalance.
In 1938, the general council reaffirmed support of collective bargaining, as it did again in 1940. In 1942, collective bargaining was "emphatically endorsed."
In 1944, principles came home as the church had to decide whether or not to ratify a union shop or closed-shop contract with the printing trade unions at its own publishing house. The church decided to support the union shop, but avoided making a general pronouncement on the question of the closed shop.
In 1946, the general council took further action on the role of labour and capital in postwar industrial planning. The statements passed by that general council said that it "recognizes labour's right to strike, but only as a last resort and on decision, by secret ballot, of all employees concerned, and views with apprehension nationwide strikes, appeals to violence and sympathy strikes as endangering the public interest."
This measured position continued to guide the church's relations with labour during the postwar period. United Church laity in the trade union leadership served on relevant boards and committees of the church. A Religion and Labour Council of Canada was gradually developed, which brought leaders and members of both sectors together for reflection and expression of joint concern.
At the 24th general council in 1971 a study was presented stating that the "role of unions in maintaining a necessary centre of power for those who would otherwise be powerless should be gratefully acknowledged," and that "unions should be urged to organize, where possible, the poorer elements of the workforce outside their present structures." Based on this study, the general council reaffirmed its endorsement of collective bargaining in a resolution.
The text of this six-part resolution appears in the first half of the appendix. I would like to read the first five parts of it, if I can:
"Collective bargaining, 24th general council, 1971, Niagara Falls, Ontario."
Be it resolved:
"1. That, in the light of present industrial organization and relations, the principle of collective bargaining is still the best means of enabling employer and employee to bargain on equal terms with the objective of securing economic justice. At the same time, in our free society, the church must affirm the right of all people to earn a living and the right to choose whether or not they will engage in the collective bargaining process.
"2. That, as a visible expression of the church's concern for economic justice, the United Church of Canada adhere to the following principles:
"(a) In any line of business, the publishing department, divisions, boards, departments and committees of the United Church of Canada shall, as a matter of policy, do business with those firms practising high standards in merchandising, competitive prices for equal quality of merchandise or service and, above all, fair labour practices, especially in the areas of wage rates and working conditions.
"(b) All persons in the church's employ be accorded the choice without prejudice to organize and bargain collectively.
"3. That this general council encourage conferences, presbyteries, presbyterials and congregations"--which are all the other courts of the church--"to ensure fair labour practices, especially in relation to wage rates and working conditions.
"4. That the general council of the United Church of Canada commend the labour movement for its social concerns as exemplified in the Canadian Labour Congress's new department of social concern, and urges the church at large to work in cooperation with labour and other sectors of society by participating in the common good of the fight against poverty.
"5. That this general council encourage the labour movement to continue and intensify its policy of supporting poorer elements of society in their struggle for a better economic life through the collective bargaining process."
The church, in the mid- and late 1970s, focused attention on the war against poverty and the struggle for labour rights of certain marginalized groups. The 27th general council in 1977 approved the recommendations of the task force on poverty, deciding to "reaffirm the support of collective bargaining, and commend and support the work of those who would apply this principle to the needs of Canada's disadvantaged," and called on the church "to recognize and use the potential it has for providing mediating services to persons, groups and communities during periods of industrial strife, providing this is done from an informed, objective and sympathetic perspective."
In 1984, as part of the resolution called the Church and the Economic Crisis, the general council approved guidelines for continuing church action. A number of the guidelines affect labour relations.
I would like to read the brief summary of the labour relations guidelines from the Church and the Economic Crisis resolution, which appears in the second part of the appendix. This is from the 30th general council, which met in Morden, Manitoba, in 1984. This resolution spoke of the United Church of Canada's:
"(A) Support of policies which:
"(i) Place the needs for employment and wellbeing of people and sustainability of communities ahead of the free movement of capital;
"(ii) Move society in the direction of greater equality and increased security of income for the poor;....
"(v) Provide equal compensation for work of equal value;....
"(viii) Expedite methods of consultation, mediation and arbitration between employees and employers in seeking to avoid strike action in the settlement of disputes."
This resolution also said that the United Church of Canada should continue:
"(B) Opposing policies which:
....
"(iii) Attack or reduce participation in trade unions and free collective bargaining."
This overview shows the United Church of Canada has had a long-standing interest in labour-management relations and, in particular, an interest in encouraging the benefits to workers which can be realized through participating in trade unions and free collective bargaining.
Our reading of the proposals being made in Bill 40 is that they are asking for the same kind of changes that the United Church has always promoted through its statements on labour relations, and therefore we would encourage the government to maintain the strength of these proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act.
On a more cautionary note, our committee would like to say too that, at the same time we support these proposed changes to the legislation, there is a significant portion of our province's population whose lives may not be directly touched by these improvements. These groups in society, those living on social assistance, the homeless and otherwise marginalized people, are also constant concerns for our church. We look forward to you, the government, giving the same kind of attention and initiative to the problems these groups face as you are giving to our province's workers.
1410
The Chair: We have six minutes per caucus.
Mr Hayes: Thank you, Reverend Dayfoot, for bringing in a different perspective on Bill 40. We've had arguments from labour, management and the corporate sector. They were coming, one representing labour, the other corporate, but you come here with a different perspective, where you're not a leader in any one of those particular groups. I think you have a very good understanding of the plight some workers have in this country--and in this world for that matter--who fight and struggle for decent working conditions and wages.
I feel so much better about this bill today, because the United Church and the report, the Church and the Economic Crisis, lead me to believe we certainly are heading in the right direction to bring these much-needed rights to people.
You talk about the people who are on social assistance, the handicapped and those people who go to churches or church organizations to get assistance when they can't get it elsewhere. Are you aware of, or have you met, people who have tried to join unions, ended up being harassed or intimidated or losing their jobs, and the hardships it has caused their families? Could you give us any examples of some of those cases? I'm sure some of these people must have come to you as their priest or minister.
Mr Dayfoot: Over my seven years in ordained ministry, I'm not sure if I can think back to an individual who has come directly to me as his minister with those concerns. It may be for a number of reasons. It may not be that it didn't happen, but often people prefer to keep the parts of their lives they consider not church, or secular, away from their minister/church-member relationship. They would be more apt to go to other family and other support structures rather than their minister for that. Even if I tried, I don't think that I could think back to a specific example of an individual coming to me.
Mr Hayes: That's okay. I'm sure if you were involved with any organizations or help groups, I think maybe you might see through those some of the hardships people have to face, just trying to put food on the table and to feed and clothe their children.
Mr Dayfoot: Yes.
Mr Hope: I'm just reviewing your comments here and then looking at what was said to us. I'm sure a lot of members of the church come before you and talk to you about problems that are potentially in the atmosphere. With the media attack on this proposal for social justice, I'm sure a lot of people are really wondering what the true effects are of this. We even heard from a professor from the University of Windsor telling us how the media, owned by Thomson--I notice you use capitalism or capital corporations as part of it. I'm just wondering about your consensus of the non-politically affiliated general public, whether it be business or union workers, the general population who come into the church.
Mr Dayfoot: I think we face the same difficulties right within the church as society in general faces with the dissemination of information and the biases and the prejudices which are always present in who is providing information and what kind of vehicle is used to speak. I would be the first to wonder whether all United Church members are even aware that this is the United Church's official policy with respect to labour relations, over its history and currently.
The policy that is formulated here and disseminated in whatever opportunity there is within the church is made by, generally, the general council, which is made up of representatives from all across, and hopefully those general council commissioners, members, come from a wide variety of churches, wide walks of life, and are able to communicate where the church stands. The church therefore would likely conduct the same kinds of discussions and the same kinds of disputes as would appear within society in general when it is presented with media articles and presentations that would seem to scare those who think there is going to be a terrible disruption or an end of something that we think of needing security.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Rev Dayfoot, for your presentation. I must say I listened to the last question. I'm less concerned about how media reports the legislation, as they see it, than some very strong concerns I have with the legislation itself. I think it has been reported in a certain balance, but that will be, of course, in the eye of the beholder.
Right from day one, we have been dealing with the right of a worker to freely choose whether to join or not to join a union, to choose free of coercion and intimidation and be fully informed. It is clear that there have been and there are examples of intimidation and coercion, from both sides, I would think, in fairness.
It would also seem that we have an opportunity here to create a new process for choosing to join, where we can embrace that freedom in legislation with a freedom from intimidation. We have that opportunity here.
It would seem to me that the old way is not the way of tomorrow, but rather the way through a secret ballot where workers are given full information, where there are substantial penalties to either the union organizer or the employer, and if they interfere, they suffer. But we embrace the principle that the worker has the right to choose and if a majority of the workers wish to be unionized, so be it. I'd like to get your thoughts on that.
Mr Dayfoot: I think that from the perspective of the church and the perspective of our basis in Christian faith in the Gospels and the New Testament and the Bible as a whole, we have to consider always not just the rights of individuals, which are clearly important in the eyes of our faith, but also the rights of groups, communities, collectives, which are also presented in our basis of faith, the New Testament, in ways that aren't really easy to see in our own society. The earliest apostles came together in groups which are very much more like communes than what we are accustomed to seeing in our own society. So we, from our perspective in the church, do not overemphasize individual freedoms with respect to collective relationships and collective groups and organizations.
I can't see any way of making a policy statement which will always hold in all circumstances about how the practical details of the process should be worked out. Always we have to uphold the individual, but we also have to uphold the rights of groups of people to grow and enhance the conditions for the whole group.
1420
Mr McGuinty: Reverend, I want to talk to you about the issue of replacement workers. I gather you're in favour of the provisions in Bill 40 which would prohibit the use of replacement workers. It's clear to me that in many cases this is going to cause hardship and I want to present you with an example and get your response.
There is a baker, a woman, who has operated a business for about 28 years. During the first 22, she built it up on her own and used friends and family members. The kids have grown up and they're doing their own thing. Now she has a half-dozen workers. She has contracts with hotels in town to supply them with high-quality pastries. Of course, the hotels count on receiving these. She has a small retail operation too. The six workers are unionized. Talks break down and they go on strike. I'm just inventing this. She wants to continue to run the operation. She can't do it alone. She can't operate what little machinery there is and perform the jobs. She can't bring people in. She was there for 22 years on her own. She put her time, her sweat, her capital into it. She wants to keep it going.
Mr Dayfoot: Our perspective from the church is that people can continue to relate even where there are disagreements, even where there is outright animosity, that we as human beings are compelled to continue to work together to work out our differences. I, myself, view the use of replacement workers as being something which hinders the motivation to work out, through the collective bargaining process, the dispute, the differences between the bakery shop owner and her six employees.
Mr Turnbull: Reverend, turning to your appendix regarding the general council, 1971, I will say that certainly the Conservative Party agrees with the last line of the fourth item: "the common goal of the fight against poverty." I want to ask you about the lack of studies by the government on the impact of this legislation. As I am sure you're aware, a study was done by Ernst and Young, a company which the government uses periodically for studies, I emphasize; it goes out and actively uses it. It is one of the leading companies in Canada for this kind of study. The study suggested that as a result of Bill 40 there would be something like 295,000 jobs lost.
We also believe--in fact we've made a freedom of information request--that the government has, internally, possession of a study which suggests that 250,000 jobs will be lost as a result of this. The Ernst and Young study suggested that in excess of $8 billion will be lost in investment in this province as a result of this. How can you equate the goal of fighting against poverty with these numbers and the fact that the government publicly denies it has ever done any study, and furthermore refuses to do any study?
Mr Dayfoot: Studies are important, no doubt, and we should glean from them the wisdom which can guide us in making our decisions, but I feel that from my perspective as a person in the church, studies are not the be-all and the end-all, and that perhaps frequently, even more often than not, our heartfelt decisions on things that have to do with justice and that have to do with the wellbeing of society and with where we are being led for the betterment of society and for all people will sometimes fly in the face of the figures that are produced in studies.
Mr Turnbull: Reverend, I am having difficulty in understanding how justice is served by having an extra 250,000 to 295,000 people in Ontario potentially losing their jobs as a result of this legislation.
Mr Dayfoot: I think the move towards justice and the desire to have justice served--we depend on our fundamental principles or where we see people being given power and equality to obtain and to work for what they see as their needs.
Mr Turnbull: At the cost of these jobs?
Mr Dayfoot: I don't feel that the fear or the warning of jobs being lost is sufficient in itself to say that there aren't sufficient grounds or there isn't sufficient reason to move in this direction.
Mr Turnbull: This morning we had a presentation from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They especially got down a gentleman who is on their staff in their Quebec office to speak about the impact that the legislation in Quebec, which is not as sweeping as this legislation, has had on the investment climate and the employment levels in Quebec since it was implemented. This has been at great suffering to the people in Quebec who don't have a job and don't have the personal dignity of going to their family and saying, "I've earned this money." They have to exist on handouts from the state. I respect the fact that you're making this presentation with all intentions of common good, but I'm hard pressed to understand how an extra 250,000 people out of work serves that good.
Mr Dayfoot: You are making a direct link between this legislation and the loss of jobs of 250,000 people.
Mr Turnbull: This study was about that. It wasn't about anything else. It was about the impact of this legislation.
Mr Dayfoot: I would say that is one factor we have to consider. We shouldn't dismiss or ignore any.
The Chair: I would say this, sir: Thank you. On behalf of the committee, we express our gratitude to the London Conference of the United Church of Canada, in particular the church in society committee, and to you, Rev Dayfoot, for your interest in this matter, for coming here to Queen's Park this afternoon and participating in this process. You've made a valuable contribution and we thank you. Take care, sir. Please have a safe trip back home.
1430
ASSOCIATION OF INVESTIGATORS AND GUARD AGENCIES OF ONTARIO
The Chair: The next participant is the security guards industry committee on labour reform. Those people who are going to be participating in the submission, please come forward and take a seat. I remind others that there is coffee and soft drinks at the side, so you can make yourselves comfortable and at home. Please proceed with your comments and try to save the last 15 minutes of the half-hour for questions, if you can.
Mr W. Roy Fitz-Gerald: First and foremost, I'd like to introduce the people at the table. Ms Deborah Coles is a vice-president of Wackenhut of Canada. Mr Ben Reiners is a vice-president of Burns International Canada. Our legal counsel is Mr Mark Ellis.
We have in the audience Mr Pat Bishop, representing Barnes Security; Mr Rick Josephson, Barnes Security; Mr Robert Robertson, Ontario Guard; Mr Harold Ball from Intertec Security; Mr Ken Shales, the president of our association as well as Cansicom Security; and Mr John Eisenschmid and Mr Tom Carmichael of Ensign Security.
We appear on behalf of the legislative committee of the Association of Investigators and Guard Agencies of Ontario. As chairman, I address you on behalf of a committee representing approximately 90% of the security guard industry in Ontario, which represents some 20,000 security officers in this province.
Today we wish to address with you our concerns about Bill 40, concerns which relate to such fundamental issues as jobs, freedom of contract, security of property, security of persons and, last but not least, the viability of our industry.
The security guard industry is a service industry. It employs over 20,000 people, most of whom are happy with their careers and livelihood. This government's Bill 40 will potentially cost Ontario as many as 10,000 of these jobs.
Why? Because the industry must provide an independent security force. Under Bill 40, which allows for the unionization of the security force by the same union which has unionized the workforce, no autonomy or independence can be pretended. Customers of the industry have already asked of its principal members, "If you cannot supply independent security officers, what is your value?"
Secondly, and as significant, our services must be provided at competitive rates. Presently, a healthy price sensitivity operates to provide service at reasonable cost. If the client is not content with the price or the service, the client will retain a supplier of services that fulfils its needs.
Not so under Bill 40. Under Bill 40, the new security guard company, as a successor employer, will be required to use the same security officers with the same wage and cost structure. Often a client wants to change contract services due to deficiencies of service provided by the present guard force. Under Bill 40, this will be virtually impossible.
Therefore, the three areas of gravest concern--(1) the provision of independent protection, (2) at an affordable price and (3) attendant good service--are all forfeit. The freedom of choice in selecting an alternative service is eliminated. This will radically detract from the viability of our industry.
When independent service, price and freedom of contract are so dramatically affected by the operation of law, clients will evaluate other options elsewhere. They have told us so. Clients will install electronic security devices, not security officers. These devices, when triggered, will require police response. The direct effect of this is increased demand on an already overtaxed police force and increased expense to an already overtaxed public. As a result, the safety of people is imperilled, the security of property is diminished and, most importantly, the jobs of 10,000 people will be jeopardized. These are badly needed jobs.
Moreover, the proposed changes to the labour law will jeopardize (1) the security of property, (2) the safety of people and (3) the officers themselves.
It is understood that behaviour cannot be legislated, but the security guard industry is in the business of monitoring behaviour with a view to the safety of people and the security of property. Unfortunately, the threat to security of both often develops when an adversarial relationship develops during contract negotiations between our clients and their employees. Therefore, although often harmonious, the relationship between the workforce of that client and security staff employed by our industry to monitor the property is adversarial in interest.
No one can maintain that the labour relations law should create a conflict of interest ensuing from the adversarial nature of the workforce versus security, yet Bill 40 will do just that. The proposed reforms will sponsor that very conflict of interest. For example, a union will be allowed to certify the workforce, including the supposedly independent security officers present in the workplace. Union members owe a direct allegiance to other union members, thus the well-known axiom "solidarity for ever."
A security officer owes rather a different allegiance, created by legislation. The security officer's duty is to the purchaser of the security services, the officer's employer's customers. The conflict is self-evident and dangerous. If the safety and security aspect of the now less-than-autonomous officer is suspect, the guard's value to the community, the customer, the employer and the workforce itself is forfeited.
The risk to Ontario's public is of major concern. Take an example: Assume a major automobile manufacturer has a major labour dispute with its workforce. Suppose that under Bill 40 the security officers have been unionized by the union of the workforce. After the statutory gestation period, the workforce strikes. The security staff, a non-essential workforce, strikes with the brethren or, where the bargaining unit is separate, refuses to cross the picket line. In a non-strike atmosphere, security is essential. In a strike situation, it is imperative. Replacement workers cannot be engaged. The very personnel retained to secure the property and ensure the safety of all workers are left in an adversarial position to the interests they were retained to guard.
Change the scenario. Assume that Bill 40 is interpreted to allow for the maintenance of security by the security guard union members during the strike. In pursuit of their statutory obligations, the officers report unlawful or dangerous behaviour of their fellow union members from the automobile plant. During and after the labour unrest, the security officer will be alienated from his or her fellow union members for siding with the employer.
Even more dangerous is the natural propensity to turn a blind eye to the infractions as a result of the fraternal obligation expressly shared by union members, thereby placing life, security and safety in jeopardy.
Moreover, those who might suggest Bill 40's approach to safety in the event of a labour strike are wrong to suggest that the employer should apply to the union for its consent of the board for approval to bring in workers for security of property and safety of personnel--this borders on the absurd. The turnaround time in the event of danger does not allow for applications, burdens of proof or otherwise. For instance, no citizen of Ontario wants to theorize on the possibility of industrial explosion while the employer and the security company seek the consent of the union or board approval.
1440
In summary, the true cost of Bill 40 to Ontario cannot be estimated. The security guard industry is concerned that 10,000 employees will lose their livelihood. Indeed, the industry will fall prey to an understandable corporate psychology: "If independent security is not available involving people, we will use electronic systems." The sophistication of off-site monitoring already allows a Dallas, Texas, security company to monitor a plant in Ontario, with the alarm response supplied by use of local police at taxpayers' expense.
Ironically, Bill 40 advances remote technology over jobs, at a direct cost to the safety and security of people and property in Ontario. This flies directly in the face of recent findings of the office of the Solicitor General of Canada, which reports that the number of public police in Canada will remain static or decrease in this decade. Bill 40 will contemporaneously shrink the number of security officers, further burden the police and imperil property and people in Ontario.
Before concluding, a further remark of the Solicitor General of Canada should be noted, that the future can only be secured by treating the public and private policing sectors as an active partnership. Bill 40 will tax the public police and dramatically prejudice the growth of autonomous private policing. In short, labour law should not compromise the position of trust and impartiality held by the security officers in pursuit of their duties. We believe that Bill 40 does.
It is our intention, if allowed, to make a further written brief, delineating further concerns with regard to Bill 40. Our submissions are made with respect, with an attendant request that Bill 40 be amended or delayed to take into consideration the unique position of trust and impartiality of the security officer in the workplace, the dramatic effect that this legislation will have on job loss and, most importantly, the negative consequences to property and people in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Five minutes per caucus.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. This is an issue which I think you will know we have heard many sides on. I wouldn't say "both sides," but "many sides." Even today, you bring a new slant to it by talking about the technology of the issue and what the real impact will be, because of the available technology to monitor without an actual person or persons having to be on the premises.
I think you might be aware that--I think it was in the first or second week of these hearings--a presentation by a representative of the Steelworkers union, if I'm correct, indicated that as soon as this bill is passed the Steelworkers are going to embark upon a campaign to organize these security guards in this province. We've also heard this is the only province in this country that has this separation of security guards from other units.
I'm wondering if you can share with us your thoughts as to the experience in Ontario in contrast to other provinces.
Mr Fitz-Gerald: I would ask Ms Deborah Coles to respond.
Ms Deborah Coles: I think you'll notice that in our presentation we don't address the issue of union versus non-union. Our belief is that there may be ways to do this but that the prime issue here is maintaining the separation of security from other persons in the workforce, whether that is by changes in this particular legislation or by different legislation or whatever.
The prime concern here is that individuals have to be able to enforce regulations and have to be able to feel that there is no two-way street, that they're not being pulled in both directions when they are asked to enforce regulations. Many people have an idea of a security guard as being something little more than a night watchman. Yes, the night watchman still does exist, and the night watchman is not the person we're concerned with here.
The persons we're concerned with here are the people who are involved in highly industrialized, highly technological atmospheres, where they are representatives of the employer, where they must enforce fire regulations, fire route parking regulations, driving regulations, within a vast property, where they must report breaches of such safety and security issues to the employer, and in some instances, I guess, possibly to the union representatives--the union stewards or whomever it might be--in regard to breaches by certain individuals within bargaining units.
One cannot be a member of a bargaining unit and also be the one reporting to higher-ups on breaches of rules and regulations, safety and security issues or whatever. This is our major concern.
Mr Offer: It seems your response is that you feel strongly and deeply that there is an inherent conflict for a security guard being in the same unit as the people whom the security guard has been charged to monitor.
Mr Fitz-Gerald: Absolutely, sir. I don't believe there has been an impact study on Bill 40 in the first place. Secondarily, we're presently licensed under Ontario legislation, the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, which specifically states our security officer is a person who patrols for the protection of life and property.
Secondarily to that, we have the Ministry of Labour labour standards branch which oversees anything which could be construed as impropriety on the part of the employer. We have a civil rights commission. I see no benefit in the implementation of Bill 40 as it relates to our industry. I think it's self-destructive to our industry.
Mr Turnbull: You certainly raise some very important points. Obviously, there is a conflict of interest.
Mr Fitz-Gerald: Absolutely.
Mr Turnbull: That's well demonstrated by the situation. As you've already heard the NDP state, in every other province in Canada security guards are allowed to be within the same union. Do you have any experience which you could reflect on as to how that has worked or not worked?
Mr Fitz-Gerald: Do you want to take that one, Ben?
Mr Ben Reiners: We are operating in various provinces in Canada, and you're quite correct, that is the case. But I also must emphasize that this very inclusion in the bill for security officers to be unionized also has in actual fact created conflict. Quite often what happens is that the employer has an option during a labour dispute to either put his in-house staff on leave or put them inside the premises, and the external parts of the premises are controlled by an "unbiased security supplier."
Mr Turnbull: So do I understand this correctly, that while the NDP is suggesting that this is the way it is in other provinces, it really, truly isn't that?
Mr Reiners: It is not.
Mr Turnbull: They are allowed to put other people in during the course of a labour dispute.
Mr Reiners: They are. But also, most importantly, even if they do have a staff, they also always make a physical segregation of the security staff from the picket lines or avoid a confrontation with their workers, for the very reason that conflicts do develop and the employer tries to avoid that during a strike situation so that it can re-establish a harmonious relationship after the labour dispute has been settled.
1450
Mr Turnbull: It seems to me that one of the many problems with this legislation is that by allowing the security staff the right to decide that they're not going to cross the picket line, you raise the possibility of management having to be directly behind the gate. That, to me, would seem to be quite counter to the stated goals of this bill in terms of raising tensions at the very time one would want to calm them.
Mr Fitz-Gerald: Even in Ontario, if there's a labour dispute, the purchaser--or the client, if you like--will move his current, even contract, security force inside and doesn't have them out in line and will bring in an external contract security to do the perimeters. They know full well that if the officers are working in the plant on an ongoing basis, albeit they are contract, there will be conflicts during and after the strike or after the labour unrest is resolved; therefore, they want to avoid this. We go to great lengths to ensure that we do our job and at the same time avoid conflict.
Mr Turnbull: I wonder if I could ask a question of Mr Ellis. I recognize that Mr Ellis is a labour lawyer but, Mr Ellis, what would be the impact for liability to an employer if something were to go seriously wrong at a time when the security guards had refused to cross a picket line?
Mr Mark Ellis: Mr Turnbull, may I answer another question placed both by you and Mr Offer first and then move to your question?
Mr Turnbull: Yes.
Mr Ellis: The first question is, why are there different regimes operating in Canada where unionization is allowed? The answer to that question, in my opinion, in my submission, is that those regimes are radically different and they recognize the absolute necessity, for the safety of the workplace, to have a separate regime for security guards in the workplace. To have it in this bill is the wrong place for it, and the wrong script, in my submission.
To move to your immediate concern, which I think is a heavy one, the answer is that if the quid pro quo for supplying and asking for services to be rendered by a securities company is safety and protection, if what you're buying is safety and protection, the fact is that under Bill 40 the ability to provide safety and protection is radically altered. I think the answer is that if liability ensues for loss, damage, loss of life or any of the other resultant damages that may well and practically occur under this bill, the result will be liability to the security company and the employer.
Mr Ward: I'd like to thank you for your fine presentation on behalf of your association. First, a comment: You mentioned that during a labour dispute, tensions rise and there is potential for a conflict between security guards onsite and the employees who have withdrawn their labour. It seems to me that the replacement worker restriction, which is designed to ease that tension, should make the life of a security guard that much better during a labour dispute, because the tensions that are currently in existence under the act as it is today should be lessened to a degree.
The question I have is that you mention potential job loss of 10,000 employees out of the 20,000 current number, a 50% reduction if Bill 40 is implemented, which allows security guards, if they so wish, to be organized and to choose a union that they think is best for them. How did you arrive at that number of 10,000? I'm curious.
Mr Fitz-Gerald: We mean 50% of the known licensed security officers, and this only touches upon the contract security officers, which I think you could rightfully double if you took into account the in-house security personnel, because they'll simply be replaced by electronics. Why would a third party, our client, want to put up with an aggravation of some situation that develops between us and our union if Bill 40 were to pass? Why would a third party want that aggro, when he simply says: "Enough. I don't want people. I'll use electronics. I am not third party to your disputes with your union."
Mr Ward: So you have research and statistics that show where this number comes from?
Mr Fitz-Gerald: The 20,000 employees?
Mr Ward: No, the 10,000 job loss.
Mr Fitz-Gerald: It's our best guesstimate as an industry in discussions with our clients present, who say that if Bill 40 goes through, they're going to have to seek alternatives, and there's enough of it happening.
Ms Coles: I think the other point on job loss here is the fact that clients will no longer have the ability, when they feel it necessary to reduce costs, to do so under the successor rights section of this act, where any new contractor coming in would become a successor employer.
Traditionally, the way people cut costs is by cutting wages, reducing the number of guards who are working at a particular location, changing the hours of coverage: one of those scenarios. The way the current legislation is proposed and the way it has been interpreted for us, none of this would be possible. Any new contractor coming into a client location would have to offer the same wages and benefits, the same employees, the same hours of work. Therefore, if a client wants to reduce costs, the way to reduce them is to cut out the people and put in the electronics.
Mr Hope: The question I have deals with the presentation itself, because you used an automotive plant. I used to be and still am an auto worker and still belong and pay my membership dues. You use that example and call it solidarity for ever. The first thing I don't want is anybody stealing from my employer, because the tools they'll probably be stealing are the tools I use to perform my job. Health and safety is a factor that all trade unionists believe in, and we're not about to see anybody do that.
When you talk about confrontation on the strike lines, you make it sound like we go out there and beat up on everything possible. I remember a number of strikes, one that lasted about eight months, where we were cooking hot dogs with the security guards over the top of a barrel, when we were burning wood. Your labelling of the workforce and the confrontation that grows I don't think really exists, because our confrontation is not with the security guards. Our confrontation is with the employer and the bargaining aspects of the employer.
Your labelling in your presentation, showing major confrontation at every strike that occurs, is unrealistic. Where we get into confrontations is when they bring trucks by and try to pull machinery out. That's where the confrontation is, and nine times out of 10, they don't increase the security. They have their private eyes already walking around with their video cameras. What they do is bring the special task force in with their billy clubs and make sure they can get people in and out.
I was also curious if your organization, your association, happens to be one of the ones that is providing professional security and busing people in and out of plants. In a presentation in Kingston, we were notified of a security company--I don't know if it's affiliated with you--that helps bring replacement workers in and out of workplaces.
Mr Fitz-Gerald: Mr Hope, you've asked a lot of questions within your rhetoric. There are certain elements of truth and certain elements of misleading information, but I would like to ask Mr Mark Ellis to respond.
Mr Ellis: Mr Hope, I just would like to clarify for the record that your description of what is contained in the materials is inaccurate. There is no suggestion of anyone beating up anyone. There is the suggestion that Ontarians believe that in a position of conflict, which strikes are, because they are in essence an area where two parties that are adversarial in the circumstances are seeking relief, security must be maintained. That's the job of the security guard and a very awkward one at that.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the security guards industry committee on labour reform. You've provided us with some unique insights into your industry and your views on the impact of Bill 40. We're grateful to you for participating in this process and we thank you.
Mr Fitz-Gerald: Thank you, Mr Kormos, and your committee.
1500
TORONTO SUN PUBLISHING CORP
The Chair: The next participant is Paul Godfrey. Tough having to press the flesh, ain't it?
Mr Paul V. Godfrey: I've often been accused of clearing a room, but I didn't think I'd do it that quickly.
The Chair: I was hoping once you've finished, maybe you and I could step outside and get a photo together.
Mr Godfrey: Absolutely.
The Chair: I've got the right connections. We might end up on page three.
Mr Godfrey: We're always glad to take pictures of you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: I'm sure of that.
Mr Godfrey: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Godfrey. I am the president and chief operating officer of the Toronto Sun Publishing Corp. With me today are lawyer Alan Shanoff, who has represented newspapers and other media for the past 15 years, and my executive assistant, John Rowsome.
I appreciate the opportunity of making this presentation before this standing committee. This is the first time, I think, in my eight years as either a publisher of the Toronto Sun or now as president that I've been before one of these committees. I appeared here in another life on many occasions, making representation on behalf of Metropolitan Toronto.
Our first newspaper, the Toronto Sun, was born out of the labour pains of the now defunct Toronto Telegram, a newspaper which had a long and proud tradition of community service. As I wrote in a recent letter to Premier Bob Rae: "The Telegram folded in broadsides of accusations about miscalculations and bluffs by union and management. Our day-oners were burned in this cauldron of labour difficulties and believed fiercely that the rules governing unions and management be fair and firm for all concerned."
So on such matters as this piece of proposed legislation, we truly care about consultation and about workers knowing exactly what they're getting into. We also care about tilted playing fields and remedies which are fair, practical and equitable for all those concerned.
Since 1986, two books listing the 100 best companies to work for in Canada have been published. Our company has made the list in each volume. I would like to quote from several passages.
"Working for the Toronto Sun has many advantages....a relaxed, unstructured environment and open management. This kind of free and easy environment is only possible in a non-unionized shop, and it certainly has advantages. A sales representative, for example, says how much he enjoys having access to his ads in the composing room....the flexibility of the whole system is outstanding. Loyalty to the Sun is secured and maintained through a promotion policy favouring internal candidates and a benefits package that looks after all necessities, and gives employees a stake in the company as well....the total compensation package is only considered the icing on the cake for most Sun employees. The Sun represents more than a job. It's a way of life."
The Sun was founded 21 years ago without any government assistance and became a North American success story because of the involvement of and relationship with our employees. Staffers come from all walks of life and from almost all corners of this province. None of our 2,216 full- and part-time Ontario employees are unionized, and while they are employed doing all manners of jobs, they share a common pride in contributing to and being part of our company.
In Ontario, our companies produce the following publications. I think it will be a surprise to some of you what we own and operate. On a daily basis, the Toronto and Ottawa Suns, the Financial Post and the Kenora Miner and News. Weekly newspapers include the Strathroy Age-Dispatch, Paris Star, Brantford Real Estate Advisor, the Amherstburg Echo, the Ontario Farmer and Harrow This Week, and the following magazines: the Western Dairy Farmer, Ontario Dairy Farmer, Ontario Hog Farmer and London Business. We also have commercial printing facilities in Toronto, Ottawa and London.
Our newspapers do not speak on behalf of big business, big unions or big lobbies. While we are non-union, we have supported some strikes, but we are against excessive demands made by some unions. We have been very vocal over governments, unions or employers who ride roughshod over union or non-union staff and the public.
Our company is pro-employee and pro-individual. We are not naïve enough to suggest that either employers or organized labour are the saviours of society, and neither should anyone else. We do feel compelled to speak directly to the legislators of this province on this occasion, in addition to commenting through the traditional route on the pages of our newspaper, because we see aspects of the proposed amendments as very extreme and very one-sided.
The bill makes the case that a collective bargaining group can better serve employees. As a person who has experienced working in both a collective bargaining environment, as a former chairman of Metropolitan Toronto council, and presently in a non-unionized organization at the Toronto Sun Publishing Corp, I can attest at first hand that this premise is not accurate. We do not need a union to protect the rights of our individual employees. At the Toronto Sun, the rights and wellbeing of individuals are paramount, as is their voice.
The purpose clause that is built into the amending legislation is designed to be reviewed when interpreting the act. As such, it is of prime importance. This clause states that collective bargaining will enhance or improve terms and conditions of employment.
If present conditions for workers have become so poor, surely the most effective way for the government to remedy the situation would be across the board, so all employees of this province, whether they be the 19% who are unionized in the private sector or the rest of the workforce, could benefit equally. The most appropriate statutory avenue is the Employment Standards Act, as opposed to the Labour Relations Act.
Bill 40 tells us that Ontario employers cannot and do not adequately protect and instil a proper standard of employment or fairly compensate their non-unionized employees. Surely our company is not the only exception to this premise. In any event, is it not the Employment Standards Act which is empowered to deal with these matters? After all, is this not the act where workers, both union and non-union, are protected in such areas as working hours, overtime pay, vacation pay, termination notification, severance pay, pregnancy and maternity leave and so on?
The purpose clause also leaves the clear message that unions and collective bargaining will be good for the economy and will make things better for all. The architects of the amendment package believe that it is beneficial to the economy to have more unions and collective bargaining, but where is the case for this? Where are the facts and figures for this? There are some 600,000 people out of work in Ontario already. Dare we risk increasing this number or contributing to a delay in a return to a healthy economy?
We have, over the past several months, heard from a number of economic analysts and business persons who warn that Bill 40 will create the most comprehensive and restrictive labour relations legislation in North America. They conclude that this will result in a curtailment of needed investment in our natural resource and manufacturing sectors and add to the lack of confidence consumers already have in our economy. Where is the economic advantage this legislation is purported to bring to Ontario? What will Bill 40 do to create needed jobs and capital infusion?
We believe that the risks are too great to proceed with the amendment package. This is vital, given the fragility of the economy, coupled with the new competition created by the recent signing of the North American free trade agreement. The last Ministry of Labour quarterly report released in mid-August stated that Toronto alone has lost 37,000 full-time jobs in the last year, Ontario as a whole lost 68,000 full-time positions, and it now takes 22.8 weeks to find a job versus 18.1 weeks just a year ago. Clearly, the government should be putting up a sign on Ontario's door reading "Open for investment," not padlocking the door to future investors.
We will not present all our concerns regarding the amendments but rather will concentrate on the certification process and the rights of workers.
Individualism and the rights of individuals are important to us. Employees should have the right to decide this issue for themselves, free from undue interference or influence from any source. These rights are not being protected when employees may be forced to belong to a union.
Under Bill 40, the ease by which a union can be certified is such that employees who do not want to belong must belong. The bill does not require a secret ballot, eliminates post-application petitions and eliminates the adequate membership support condition in a case of perceived unfair practice. In the process, this legislation will give the Ontario Labour Relations Board the power to certify a union even if the required level of support is not met. In short, these amendments will alter the certification process from determining the true wishes of employees only to facilitate union certification.
Our company is convinced that a secret ballot on the wishes of employees is essential before a union is granted collective bargaining rights, or to accept a contract, or to go on strike for that matter. A secret vote is vital to the integrity of the process and acknowledges the right of the individual. Surely this does not need to be debated at length, since the secret ballot is the cornerstone of democracy.
1510
We also urge the adoption of standards in the legislation to require complete disclosure to employees during union sign-up campaigns. Post-application petitions should not be eliminated, because this is a process by which individual employees can express their desire not to join a collective bargaining unit. Furthermore, employees are often unaware of a union organizing drive until after the union has made an application. The elimination of a petition may leave these workers without a vote, potentially thousands of employees disfranchised.
Changing the rules so that an employee cannot change his or her mind unless there is an actual vote and deleting the requirement for the payment of a $1 membership fee abrogates the rights of workers. Their rights under the bill can be taken away too easily.
Individuals should not lose rights to personally represent themselves based entirely on membership cards signed in often confusing and pressure-packed circumstances. Certainly with the proposed elimination of the petition safeguard, it is absolutely imperative that employees have an opportunity to think about the implications of joining a union.
That, as I understand it, was the reasoning behind the $1 membership fee. Rather than eliminate the fee, it should in fact be increased. Without a union card fee, an employee may sign without understanding that the card represents a decision to join a union. It's bad enough that the present system is archaic because it does not ensure that sufficient information is provided for an informed decision.
Ontario consumer protection legislation allows individuals 72 hours to change their minds upon signing a contract. Bill 40 does the opposite. Once an employee has signed up, he or she is unable to change his or her mind, as the provisions for sober second thought and a cooling-off period have been discarded. It is bitter irony that consumers in this province have more rights than non-unionized employees.
Perhaps the most glaring example of how the playing field has been tilted revolves around the convenient and subtle rule changes to the certification of bargaining units. New amendments establish procedures to best accommodate union membership counts as they relate to employees at different locations, as well as the inclusion of part-time workers only when it suits the vote in favour of union certification.
Can anyone give me a plausible explanation why we should count votes if in favour of a union and not count them if opposed? This is precisely what the legislation would have us do. This amendment is at the same time inequitable, intolerable and inconsistent.
The present act forbids an employer from "promises" or "undue influence," but union organizers can promise or pressure at will. The amendments would handicap employer-employee negotiations by holding the employers or owners to a higher standard than paid union negotiators. Let the employer slip in what is promised, and the union may be certified automatically. Automatic certification if an employer or his agent makes a mistake may result in a union being imposed against the wishes of a majority of employees.
The bill clearly states that the board will not, as at present, have to determine if there is adequate membership support. On the contrary, the mandate will be to certify the union because a mistake has been made. How is this fair to the individual rights of workers? How many businesses, big or small, have in-house legal expertise to help them avoid any unintentional contravention of the act? Not many, I am sure; certainly not in our companies outside Toronto.
Ontario has prided itself on developing an equitable framework for labour relations; however, the amendments contained in Bill 40 do the opposite. The rights of the individual worker have been replaced by the government's desire to give a monopoly to the union side of the ledger.
I have spoken only of the certification process. Do not take my silence on the other parts of this bill as acquiescence; it's a sign only of the time constraints. In fact, there are so many changes being proposed that collective bargaining will be for ever altered, to the detriment of all Ontarians. These changes include abrogating property rights to permit access to private property, increasing the powers of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and arbitrators, requiring midterm collective bargaining over group terminations and imposing first contracts, to name just a few.
On the matter of banning replacement workers, which is not to be confused with strikebreakers, I fully endorse the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association's brief on the unfair and dramatic effect this will have not only on our industry but on a number of essential services and social agencies. Passing the replacement worker provision could cripple or destroy a newspaper.
These changes collectively are so pervasive as to dramatically and negatively alter the playing field for ever.
We urge you to withdraw these amendments. If constructive collective bargaining is to take place, there must be no doubt at all that the majority of workers support the union. Surely, if this is not the case, the sour harvest will be bitter strikes, acrimony in the workplace and disruptive first collective agreements.
Mr Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to address this committee on this most important issue.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Four minutes per caucus. Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Mr Godfrey, thank you very much for your presentation and the insight you have provided from your perspective. I appreciate the time you have spent talking about the infringement of the rights of the individual worker. It's certainly an issue that our caucus has been very concerned about.
I'd like to ask you a question. Some people have expressed to us the concern that the Premier and the government do not fully understand the economic impact and consequences of introducing Bill 40. In your position, what do you believe the economic impact will be in this province?
Mr Godfrey: I really think that this proposed legislation is the greatest roadblock to economic recovery in Ontario. We have a crippled economy. We can tell through the help-wanted ads of our newspaper that there are very few people hiring today. If there are investors out there, and I believe there are, they will not look to Ontario, they will not come here, if this bill passes. The fact is, there are plenty of locations to go to in this country and other countries. If investors compare the labour legislation here in Ontario to what other provinces and countries have to offer, this legislation will prevent the normal recovery that is essential for Ontario.
Mrs Witmer: There seems to be an obstacle to recovery and this bill certainly contributes to it. Certainly, there are people who have indicated as well that the reason we have a problem today is because of the process used by the Premier. Unfortunately, Premier Bob Rae had an opportunity, unlike any other Premier in this province, to establish a very cooperative relationship between labour and management, and that has not occurred. What could he and the government now do to help build that cooperative relationship?
Mr Godfrey: I think we're at a point at this present time that what is essentially needed is a cooperative venture between government and the private sector. One of the greatest and biggest olive branches that can be given at this point in time would be for the government to indicate that it is more important to proceed with economic recovery and to join with business in getting the economy rolling again and delaying or deferring or withdrawing this legislation. I think it would show the private sector and the entire business community an act of good faith, an intention that the government's first priority would be to work with the private sector in order to create jobs in this province.
1520
Mr Huget: Thank you for your presentation. Your industry is indeed a fascinating one, and I must say I've had some involvement with it in my past. In my youth I was involved in front-line distribution, I guess, or more affectionately known as a paper-boy. So I don't have the experience that you do in the industry, but I enjoyed that.
Mr Godfrey: It's a great way to start.
Mr Huget: I'm fascinated by the industry. The question I want to ask you is, there have been views presented to this committee in terms of the coverage by the media on this legislation, and the views that have been expressed have been ones that I guess say that newspapers have evolved away from what was their original purpose, in terms of being independent, unbiased reporters. The views have been expressed by a few people that newspapers have evolved to a different thing now in society. They're very much, in some people's view, a mechanism to deliver readers to advertisers, much in the same way that television, for example, has evolved into something that delivers viewers to commercials.
There has been at least one and possibly other subtle sorts of implications that because of that connection with the advertising sector and the business sector which does the advertising, it would be impossible for the media to report this thing unbiased. I've been listening to those views and I think the committee owes you an opportunity to express your viewpoint on that issue.
Mr Godfrey: I'm delighted to do that. I spent 20 years in public life and had, like many other people in public life, a certain view of how newspapers functioned. I've now been part of the newspaper business for eight years. One thing I learned almost on day one is that there is zero relationship in my newspaper and all other newspapers that I've come into contact with, our competition, those that belong to our chain of newspapers; that editorial and advertising have no relationship whatsoever.
Should advertisers try to impose their wishes on editorial, they will find themselves left out in the cold. If an advertiser threatens us in any way with withdrawal of advertising if a certain story is written or a certain slant is taken on a story, we say to the advertiser, no matter how big or how small, "There's the door; we'll see you around."
I can assure you and the other members of the committee and the public at large that the editorial writers who work for our newspaper and who work for our competition couldn't care less who advertises in our paper, or whether they advertise. They report the news as the news breaks. Our columnists give their own individual opinions, no matter what the newspaper policy happens to be. Columnists quite often attack the publisher, the president, the chairman. In our newspaper that's sort of one of the great features, that the editorial page, the editorial as such, will take one position and a columnist will take a dramatically different position. I can show you at least half a dozen individual articles where I have stated something in the realm of my public activities, only to have a columnist who happens to work for me brutally attack me. That's considered fair game in our newspaper. So for anyone to even think newspapers would possibly consider worrying about what an advertiser thinks, you'd only have to be under our roof for less than 24 hours to realize that's not the case.
Mr McGuinty: I'm confident, of course, as you probably are, that Bill 40 will shortly become law in our province. Our motion to extend the hearings was defeated earlier today.
I want to touch on an important shift that Bill 40 represents, an important shift in public policy in this province, something which is, to my understanding, without precedent. That is the issue of public safety, the public interest.
Bill 40 provides that, more often than not, when there is a situation calling for the continuation of workers to keep working, because it's in the public interest, because it's for the public's safety, that will become the subject of negotiation between the employer and the union.
For instance, we've heard from professional engineers who are required--one example was given--to monitor the chlorine levels in a water system. We've heard from children's aid society workers who are concerned with the welfare of children. We've heard from the Municipal Electric Association, which is concerned with maintaining a reliable supply of electricity. All those people and many others are mandated by law to keep the public interest, public safety, paramount. Suddenly, this is becoming the subject of negotiation. I just wanted to get your comments on that.
Mr Godfrey: As I indicated before, I limited my remarks to those affecting the Toronto Sun and our industry certification and the protection of the individual. I've read a considerable amount about this proposed piece of legislation, and there are many aspects of it that worry me. There is no doubt that suddenly there will be many new factors in the whole question of the factor of the safety of individuals which probably were not seriously thought about when this bill was being considered. I think there are many pitfalls the bill has and this happens to be one of them, this whole aspect.
I've read about the presentations made by some of the other organizations that have come forward with respect to the welfare of children, and I've tried to read their briefs as well. I must say that I must concur in that.
The questioner indicated that the bill would likely pass. I really think, and I would hope, that the democratic process, the decision of the Legislature and the position of the government, would at least, before drawing a conclusion, hear all the briefs out before making the decision.
For instance, we have thousands of coupons that have been sent in to the Toronto Sun. We put a coupon in our paper and asked readers to communicate with us. Our business editor has bagfuls of them, from readers, from non-union workers, from union members, who have all made points, who have all given their little message about such things as public safety, about replacement workers, about certification. There are thousands of people out there who are much more concerned because their own lives are going to be impacted who really do not have either the ability, the time or the knowledge of how to get their views in front of this committee, in front of the Legislature. I think members of the committee should be aware of that. As I said, the concerns of the employees of our organization are of prime importance to us. Without them, we could not get our paper out almost every day of the year. So it's really important that their wellbeing be protected. That's our greatest asset. That's the thing we want to protect.
Although that's important--and it's important to many--it's equally important or even more important at this point that the economy be given the full impact of everyone's attention. The economy is not going to get the full impact of everyone's attention if this bill is passed. All the potential investment that is there goes to other provinces, other jurisdictions. I truly worry about what's going to happen to Ontario in the future if this legislation is passed. I would hope a decision hasn't been made yet.
The Chair: I want to thank Mr Shanoff, Mr Rowsome and you, Mr Godfrey, for your interest in this matter, for attending here today, for your participation and for the most valuable contribution you've made to this process.
Mr Godfrey: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear.
The Chair: Take care.
1530
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. Would the people speaking on behalf of OSSTF please come forward, have a seat in front of a microphone, tell us their names and titles, if any, and proceed with their comments. Please try to save the last half of the half-hour for exchanges and questions. Go right ahead.
Ms Liz Barkley: We thank the committee for giving us the right to speak and of course we hope you weigh our position as you will weigh all others.
We have part of the leadership of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation with us today. My name is Liz Barkley. I'm the president of the OSSTF. Earl Manners is the vice-president. Bev Wilson is the president of the office and clerical workers of District 8, Hamilton. Malcolm Buchanan is the director of organizing.
Bill 40, as you know, has provoked a furious response from the business community. Large coalitions of business interests have launched a concerted, and I might add a very expensive lobbying campaign against the present government's efforts to enact, in our opinion, responsible labour legislation. The attacks have been vehement to the point of hysteria. As we just heard, there are fear tactics and overstatements involved on a continuous basis.
One has to wonder if this campaign is not part of a larger plan to ensure that a social democratic government never again comes to power in Ontario if business has its way. This might account for the rather unthinking support of the two other political parties for the business lobby's campaign to delay, discredit and defeat this bill.
Much of the vitriol has been anti-union rhetoric. There is a definite attempt to make the words "union" and "labour" sound threatening. In all of this media propaganda against Bill 40, one should replace the word "union" with "workers," "people," "citizens" and "supporters of families." Union members are husbands, they are wives, they are fathers, they are sisters and they are our brothers. They are our sons and they are our daughters. They are the breadwinners.
As I have stated, The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation is pleased to have this opportunity to address the standing committee on resources development on Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment.
I will now turn to my vice-president, Earl Manners.
Mr Earl Manners: In 1985, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation was recognized by the Ontario Labour Relations Board as a trade union. Since then, we have organized and integrated into our union more than 9,000 educational workers. They include occasional teachers, psychologists, psychometrists, secretaries, custodians and support staff, speech pathologists, social workers, teaching assistants and other groups in public schools, in separate schools and in English and French schools throughout the province.
Our experience in organizing these new members, in negotiating first contracts and in maintaining these collective agreements for a number of years has given us a clear understanding of the strengths and the weaknesses of labour legislation here in Ontario. On behalf of our 45,000 members, we applaud the present government's attempt to improve labour relations in this province, but we believe that the present bill does not go far enough.
Let me begin by outlining some of the proposals we support. We support quick hearings with strict time limits on a complaint that an employee was illegally disciplined or discharged during an organizing drive. We support allowing picketing and organizing activity on property normally open to the public. We support expanding the Ministry of Labour's public education service to ensure everyone is aware of his or her rights and obligations. We support directing the Ontario Labour Relations Board to find that a single unit of full- and part-time employees is appropriate for representation by a union of their choice. Many part-time workers with school boards are women and they deserve full union protection.
These changes are an improvement to the existing act and will hopefully reduce the intimidation employers can use and do use during an organizing campaign. However, the federation believes that further improvements are required to protect workers during the organizing and certification process. There is a great deal of fear of retaliation among unorganized workers if they should participate in an organizing campaign and sign a union membership card. This is particularly true where there is a large immigrant population, many of whom come from countries without a tradition of trade unionism or democracy.
To that end, we recommend that employers should be obliged to post, in all workplaces, employee and employer rights and obligations under the act. This should be in the language of the workplace. We recommend that during an organizing drive, a separate posting should advise employees of their rights.
The federation generally supports those proposals which improve and expedite the certification process. However, the federation would make the following additional suggestions:
No anti-union petitions should be permitted at any point in the certification process. These petitions are influenced by the employer. Signing or not signing a membership card should be sufficient evidence of support or non-support for joining a union.
The labour relations board should provide the trade union with the list of the employees in the employer's proposed bargaining unit. We do not believe this infringes on an individual's privacy. Right now, the employer has all the advantage with that information.
Employer-furnished lists should outline the job classification, the workplace and the permanent, part-time or casual employment status of each employee.
Access to the workplace should be guaranteed during organizing as well. Our experience with occasional teachers and educational workers located at many work sites has shown us that this is necessary.
Supervisory personnel and midlevel management should be included in the legislation. You must remember that we have experience in representing front-line managers, our principals and vice-principals, and it has been a very positive experience.
A number of bargaining units have prepared and submitted briefs to this committee which outline specific instances of difficulties experienced during the organization process, and these briefs show the need for the improvements we have identified.
In the area of first-contract negotiations, the federation believes that the provision for first-contract arbitration upon the request of either party is essential.
Our local units can clearly document how their employer forced them to go on strike for wage increases that had already been granted to non-union employees and exceeded in negotiations by other locals which were not negotiating a first contract. Their briefs have outlined the delays and limited meeting opportunities which frustrated the whole purpose of their certification. We can also show where the current legislation has been ineffective in preventing a strike. This means of achieving a first formalized relationship without disruption of the work in the workplace should be welcome to both employer and employee.
In this province, very few strikes and lockouts occur. When they do occur, the hiring of scabs has embittered the labour-management relationship and in many cases needlessly prolonged the work stoppage. The ban on the use of bargaining unit employees and the limitations on scabs are the cornerstone of this legislation and even this is a modest proposal. The provisions of the Quebec Labour Code are much more stringent than those proposed under Bill 40.
1540
Democracy defines a majority as 50% plus one. Many weighty social concerns are determined by simple majority. We believe that the requirement for a 60% sanction vote in the anti-scab provisions is fundamentally wrong.
The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation recognizes gratefully that many of the changes proposed in Bill 40 will benefit our members who come under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We hope this government will accept to apply these changes to those of our members who are governed by the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. We speak in particular of such provisions that are already in the act; for example, the duty of fair representation and expedited arbitration and new proposals regarding just cause, continuation of benefits during a strike, prohibition of replacement workers and the prohibition of the use of bargaining unit employees. We believe that teachers deserve the same level of protection as other workers in these areas and this can be accomplished by simply amending section 2 of the current act.
In conclusion, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation welcomes this government initiative. It is excellent as far as it goes. We often hear touted the productivity of Germany and Japan. We believe their productivity derives in part from enlightened labour-management practices. In Germany, for example, workers have direct voting participation in the management of the enterprise. In Japan, the minimum wage is set at 5% of the average CEO salary and the corporation share of taxation in Japan is the same percentage share of the gross domestic product as comes from income tax.
When the corporate sector has recognized its responsibility to bear a fair share of the tax burden, when corporations begin to invest in research and development, when they begin to look on their workers and the union that represents them as essential components in decision-making, Ontario will begin to occupy its place as a model for enlightened labour-management practices. The time has come to put aside ad campaigns that portray organized labour as the bogeyman. Now is the time for more enlightened labour-management relations.
If the present government must drag some socially irresponsible corporations into the 20th century, so be it. We believe that Bill 40, as it was originally drafted, had the potential to do much good. We encourage this government not to bend to the attempt to satisfy those who would seek to destroy them. It is for that reason we end with the assurance--and we borrow it from another political party--that we, too, shall stay alive till ''95.
Mr Wood: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation. As you are well aware, in the five weeks of hearings we're getting down to the last hour of presentations now. A lot of people have come forward supporting the bill. It seems there are positive feelings out there--investment in Ontario. I just wanted to get on the record the fact that Du Pont Canada in Kingston is investing $55 million. They're going to create a couple of hundred construction jobs there. A paper mill in Kapuskasing is investing over $200 million and has created about 225 jobs there. There's a lot of positive feeling out there that there is not that much fear of Bill 40 in the modest and minor amendments that have been brought forward.
My question really is in the education of labour history and the message getting out there. Women have come forward and said that before they found out about a union, there was sexual harassment on the job from the manager of a grocery store and we've had all kinds of examples of how unorganized workers are being abused, with no safety for them and no place to turn to. I'm just wondering how much education there is and at what level. Maybe it should start at kindergarten or pre-kindergarten and work its way up--what rights are available and where they should turn to in these areas, because it seems like there's a great concern. Yet we have some of the business people saying the labour laws that were brought in by the Conservative government--and we all know they were in there for 42 years and the Liberals were in there for five--leave them alone, that the laws that were brought in 20 years ago are all right, that you don't have to change laws to reflect the changes in the workforce. I'm concerned about the education part of it there, if we can do something.
Ms Barkley: You're very correct. When we started our organizing drive, very few years ago it was, we were overwhelmed by the number of people who approached us. We were basically a teachers' union. We opened up to all educational workers and immediately had an enormous number of women. Ninety-five per cent of the people who approached us were women suffering from many of the problems that you have indicated, basically in wages and working conditions, and in many instances being made to feel like slave labour, really. If they had a contract, it was not one they understood. It was not often that they were even given one. They rushed to us because they happened to know us as teachers and so they also knew our record within collective bargaining.
In the whole area of education, you have a very major point. I was a history teacher, and labour history tends to be not in evidence, except for the Winnipeg General Strike. There's one board that I know, which is a Toronto board, that does actually teach labour history. As our teachers have grown more aware of labour history, and this is part of it, as we have evolved into a union--that's been an evolution--more and more of our teachers are beginning to recognize that history is not just a history of the ruling class, the kings, the queens and the prime ministers.
So that's been a part of a change, and it's a slow change. But certainly as leadership here, we try to encourage our members, our history teachers, our economics teachers--we did that with the GST, for example. We gave economics lessons on the GST for economics teachers, who could use or not use it as they chose.
I think certainly as we've evolved into a union and our consciousness has changed a bit--certainly to women workers in the workplace, sexual harassment etc, that is changing within the education sphere. More and more boards, though, should be adopting the concept of labour history as part of the history of this country, and it should be part of a history course.
Mr Wood: Just briefly on that, I felt there should be some mandatory education on that, but I raised the issue in questioning the chamber of commerce from Newmarket this morning as to what their feelings would be on mandatory unionization. When you come out of school, universities or whatever, in order to be a doctor, you must pay your fees; in order to be a lawyer, you must pay your fees. There's compulsory affiliation to them and if you don't pay them, you don't work.
I'm just wondering what the feeling would be, if you come out of high school or university or college, you have the right to go and join a union of your choice, and if, after a year's experience, you want to decertify, well, you take a vote in the workplace of 65% or 70% or whatever to decertify. I'm just wondering what your reaction would be on that.
Mr Manners: I think that's a democratic right of individuals and workers in this province, and something that should be available to them. As teachers, when they come out of teachers' college, they are automatically in one of five teacher unions in this province, depending on the school system they are working for.
That is very well supported because, as a union, we provide not only protection in terms of their contract agreements but a great deal of professional development and support services for them, especially in their early years when they're struggling in their job and learning the craft of teaching.
1550
Mr Phillips: I very much value the paper the OSSTF prepared. I commit to keeping it for some time and referring to it often.
The one thing I would just point out to you that you may not be aware of, but certainly when I'm in the staff rooms around my area I point out that the federal government this year did increase its payments to the provincial government by about 20%. I think it went up about $1.6 billion. The province increased its payments to school boards by about 1%, which I know is of a good deal of concern to your people because you had a very solemn commitment that it was going to increase its share of spending, and it has dramatically decreased it. I just point that out because oftentimes the OSSTF members in my area are interested to learn that and weren't aware of it.
Ms Barkley: Can I correct just one thing, though? There is one little part there, Mr Phillips. The transfer payments have been capped. In actual fact, they've been capped.
Mr Phillips: I'm just going by the budget here, and it shows payments from the federal government went up 20%.
Ms Barkley: No, they didn't. They've been capped.
Mr Phillips: It's right in the budget, and you should look at that.
Mr Huget: The witness may be able to respond, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Both of these people are doing just fine.
Mr Phillips: I want to get to my question. That's a point of fact and I'd be happy to share the budget with you afterwards.
The background paper you provided I think was constructive, because it uses terms like "the well-heeled boots of the corporate agenda," "the virulence of the doctors' campaign" and "corporate welfare bums," I think you refer to the business community as. I think you also say here, "The unquestioning support of the business lobby propaganda...is proof positive that neither of these parties could possibly have drafted fair and equitable labour laws."
I guess it's consistent with what I think we've heard from many of the labour leaders in the province, and that is, I think, a complete distrust of the business community. In fact, I think most of the labour leaders who have come to us have used terms like "spoiled brats" and "they are hysterical" I think some have said that the business community wants to start a class warfare, and your comments are not dissimilar to those.
It bothers me a lot that it looks like we have this enormous polarization in the province, with the labour leaders, like yourself, having virtually no faith in the business community, and perhaps it's happening on the other side. Perhaps the business community is also starting to begin to feel that way. So we've got this enormous polarization, with the OSSTF I think categorizing all of the business community as not--I think you used "socially irresponsible" in your remarks, sir.
I guess it's just helpful for me to understand where the OSSTF leadership is coming from on this, because I think you and I had this conversation a year ago where you said, "The business community cares about nothing but profits." I don't agree with that. I have a different view of the business community, but it would be helpful for me to just understand where the OSSTF leadership comes from in terms of its view of the business community, because I gather your comments are on the assumption that you don't have a lot of confidence in it.
The Chair: Ms Barkley, that was a plethora of questions and issues. You can answer all or some or none, and I'll give you more than a reasonable amount of time to do that formidable task.
Ms Barkley: I want to deal with it, because Mr Phillips and I have had this particular debate before and I know he has a concern and he's been close to the OSSTF over the years. I just want to say, though, on the transfer payments, Gerry, there's one thing that is true, and we can prove this, from 1986 till now, the transfer payments, which have been capped federally, have gone from 50% down to 31%. So the amount of--
Mr Phillips: The budgets show that from the federal government, the transfer payments are going up $1.6 billion.
Ms Barkley: Maybe we could discuss--I promise to give you all of the--I don't want to take--
Mr Hope: He doesn't want you to get on the record. That's probably why he interrupted you.
Mr Phillips: No, no. I have the budget here. I'll just take out Floyd Laughren's budget.
Ms Barkley: In any case, Gerry, let me try to answer some of the other questions.
Mr Phillips: Great. Thank you.
Ms Barkley: You're talking about why OSSTF, and I would say the other of the teachers' federations, which have not been--and we are not part of the OFL or the CLC, which would be considered to be the mainstream of the labour movement. So we've not been part of that. This has been an evolution that has come from our own experience, really in Ontario specifically. It's occurring in other parts of Canada, as you may well know.
One of the reasons, I guess, was the approach of business, for example, big business, towards the GST. I'm talking about big. I'm not talking about small business; you know that. I'm talking about the big corporations. I'm talking about the transnationals and the main corporations, and we have seen their lack of social responsibility. There are no corporate taxes among the vast majority of these large corporations and a fight every time somebody suggests they should pay even a minimum corporate tax to the welfare of the citizens of this province, in which they make their very large profits.
I guess when we see this and we see the recession and we see the poverty it has created and we don't see some of these big corporations taking responsibility to be good corporate citizens--we do have some, but unfortunately the international ones in particular do not look at Canada, at Ontario, as part of their responsibility, contrary to the Japanese entrepreneurs, for example, who put back money within the context of their society. Many of our transnationals don't. Their only concern, from what we have learned--this is evolution and you know that. From our own experience, we have learned to be very distrustful.
I'll give you another example that happened just this week, which got us very excited. I think you know channel 1 in the United States, where if you buy 10 minutes of a corporation's--
Mr Manners: Youth News Network, YNN.
Ms Barkley: Youth News Network, YNN, in the United States. They can go in and give the corporate message for 10 minutes, with two minutes of ads for McDonald's, Coca-Cola, whatever. They can use these captives, our students, as a captive audience for commercialism, for bringing forward corporate concepts or values. Now we have this coming here into Canada.
Mr Phillips: Really?
Ms Barkley: Yes. For example, they just got $50,000 worth of equipment, which they can't afford normally. They signed a contract for five years. Every day, an entrepreneur brings in 10 minutes--he chooses it--eight minutes of news and two minutes of commercials. It seems to me that is an intrusion by one aspect of our society into something that should be sacred, that is, our classrooms. Our students should not be used this way. As teachers, this makes us extremely upset. This person is in Toronto right now negotiating with your board, and I must say, Mr Phillips, your board said no.
Mr Phillips: This is very instructive.
Ms Barkley: It's true.
Mr Manners: If I may add a point, I want to emphasize that we're prepared to work with business and labour in developing progressive educational programs over the years, but part of the distrust revolves around the fact that, although the business community in 1988 said social programs were a sacred trust, the first level of cuts the business community always talks about is social programs, including education. That is a real threat to our livelihood and to the genuine desire on our part to continue to provide the top-quality education that we do in Ontario.
As well, we have examples of the vice-president of MacMillan Bloedel speaking to the Conference Board of Canada, suggesting that the only useful education is science, math and a little bit of English, and that social sciences and history, all those things related to labour history, are best taught on TV. That kind of narrow view of social services and the responsibilities of educational workers, whether they be teachers, secretaries or others who are providing that service, scares us immensely.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'd like to preface my remarks by saying that as a former member of your union for 12 years, when I was a secondary school teacher, as a trustee and chairperson of a school board for 10 years and as a parent now for 18, I have had the opportunity to be affiliated with many outstanding teachers in this province who are dedicated to the wellbeing of young people, and I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate those individuals, those teachers, whose job is becoming more difficult than ever before, on the outstanding job they do for young people in this province.
Mr Manners: Thank you.
Mrs Witmer: However, having said that--
Mr Manners: I knew that was coming.
Mrs Witmer: I'm concerned, because nowhere in this document do I see a mention of students or young people.
Ms Barkley: That was not the purpose of this presentation to you. We deal with students on a daily basis, and curriculum, in all kinds of different ways, of course. The purpose of our presentation today was to deal with the people who work with and for young people, to make sure that in the workplace where education is, people have reasonable working conditions and compensation. In some instances, we know that has not been true. From our own experience in organizing, we've had some really horrendous situations occur.
We thought this would give us an opportunity from our experience, limited though it is, to share with you what we think should occur for people, not just teachers or educational workers or secretaries, but just in a general way, to make it much more humane.
What really came to my mind when I was listening, Elizabeth--I've been watching the presentations on TV--is the overreaction--Mr Phillips again--of part of the business community.
These kinds of reforms have been in Quebec. I taught in Quebec a long time ago and across a lot of western Europe--not England, this is true. So I've just been a little frightened by that whole response. As far as the students go, we deal with that probably 95% of our time. This is one time, though, we're trying to deal with the people who touch the students each day.
1600
Mrs Witmer: I'll tell you why I asked that question actually. The example has been given that in the event of the strike and custodians were not allowed to continue with the performance of their duties, schools could be closed down. I guess I wondered if you had some concern about that, if replacement workers were not able to come in.
Mr Manners: I'd like to begin by saying that one of the premises that I think is very true in the educational sector is that educational workers' working conditions are students' learning conditions. We are the ones who negotiate smaller class sizes. We are the ones who negotiate that teaching assistants and educational assistants are in the classrooms working with special-needs students. We are the ones who negotiate that secretaries and custodians are in the school to provide a healthy, safe and welcoming environment. That is the nature of our job.
As we negotiate, we are always keeping in mind the learning environment and the working environment of our members and students. Occasionally, and I say very occasionally--we represent a number of bargaining units and almost all of them settle every year, if not all of them--there are strikes. They are usually short in duration because there is a willingness on the part of us to try and resolve our differences as quickly as possible.
Where they have been prolonged is where replacement workers, unqualified people--the board doesn't even know what their background is--have crossed the picket line, whether that's for teachers, for secretaries or for custodians. We think that presents a very present danger in our school system, so that's why we support the anti-scab legislation. We hope it would reduce the tension on the picket line, and improve cooperation and the desire to try to resolve our differences so that we can all get back to the job we like to do best.
Mrs Witmer: My final question is this: When I was a member of OSSTF I always assumed that it was a politically neutral association. Unfortunately, because of the tone of the presentation today, I see it as being very political. I have to tell you personally that it concerns me because I think we're all looking at doing what's best for people in this province, yet in the presentation you certainly come across as being very political. Has there been a change in the OSSTF position?
Ms Barkley: I would say there've been massive changes in the OSSTF in the past 10 years, but we are not, as the labour movement is, affiliated with a particular party. No, we do not pay dues to any given party. We approach each election, but we involve ourselves municipally now, provincially and federally in elections. That is a commitment that's been passed by our annual meetings, but we do not affiliate. We take very seriously the position that all parties take, for example, on the social issues; not just education. We are concerned about health as well and our whole social net. We're very concerned about all of that.
Tom Wells once said that education is political, and we've learned that lesson in spades. Our teachers recognize, no matter what kind of clause I can write, or Malcolm can write or Bev can write, we have to be able to influence the political decision-makers, and these are you people right here: the political parties. So as we approach each election, we look and see what the position of the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP, and now the Reform Party--we have a good idea there--are, and we compare them and we put them out and we take our decision on what we're going to do. But we have not supported a political party per se yet to date--the defeat of some parties, mind you, but not support.
Mr Turnbull: I'm somewhat concerned about the fact that during these hearings we have heard from every union group, with the exception of a couple that were speaking out against this legislation, calling the business sector hysterical, yet I have to tell you--I haven't sat through all the hearings, but of the hearings that I've sat through--the presentation that I've just heard and the vilification of the business sector, broad-brush vilification of it, and some of the quotes in here have got to be the most hysterical things I have heard in the whole of these hearings.
I know that teachers in my own constituency of York Mills are rather appalled at the kind of positions you're taking, teachers who are forced to join your union and who do not agree with what you are saying.
Ms Barkley: My goodness, I was the president of North York and York Mills was one of my strongest supporters.
Mr Turnbull: I can tell you that I have teachers phoning me, saying that they do not like the positions the teachers are taking now.
Ms Barkley: Majority rules, as always.
Mr Turnbull: Have you polled your people as to this response?
Ms Barkley: We don't poll. We don't believe in referendum per se. We have an annual assembly every year and a provincial council every month. We have representation of one per 100 members at our annual meeting every March. The input of our members comes into that in a very democratic way. But I'd like you to turn to page 4, if you wonder why--
Mr Turnbull: I am on page 4.
Ms Barkley: If you would take a look at the bottom and, again, I think Mr Phillips would be distressed by that--
Mr Phillips: What's that?
Ms Barkley: Look at page 4, at the bottom of the cartoon, which will distress you too: "to participate in training." Here's our complaint about Canadian industry, if you take a look at that paragraph: "Canadian corporations make the lowest contribution of all 97 corporations to this." You have to read the whole thing.
Mr Turnbull: Are you aware that from the corporate perspective Ontario is now the most heavily taxed administration in the whole of North America? That may have something to do with it. This cartoon talks about corporate greed. I have to tell you that an awful lot of my constituents have contacted me--these are not my words--and they have said they find the teachers' unions are the most greedy that exist.
Ms Barkley: Let me tell you something. I had an experience here. I went to university in the United States. I went to high school in the United States. Two of the things we pay for are health and education. We should be really concerned as we attack the social net or our taxes. You should really go down and examine some of the things that are occurring within the health system there. Over 50 million people do not have any health insurance at all. I witnessed what happened to some of those people.
Mr Turnbull: I agree with you but--
Ms Barkley: You should take a look at the public school system.
Mr Turnbull: --that's got nothing to do with this.
Ms Barkley: Yes, it does, absolutely: taxes. What you have in the United States is a situation where the number of have-nots is getting larger. You don't have an apple there any more; you have a big pear, a growing pear. Take a look at Los Angeles. In Los Angeles right now the have-nots are expanding, if you wondered why the riots occurred. I agree that there should be a reform of the whole tax system. I don't disagree with that at all. But when you say we pay too much, you should consider if you would you like to live there. I suggest you try it. I did; I came back here very quickly.
Mr Turnbull: Excuse me; you missed the point I made. I said Ontario corporations pay the heaviest level of taxation in the whole of North America--that includes all Canadian administrations--and demonstrably the Ontario education system is really falling down as compared with other administrations in Canada.
Ms Barkley: I disagree totally with you on that.
Mr Turnbull: Well, I disagree with you.
Ms Barkley: Well, we both disagree with each other then.
Mr Turnbull: Good.
The Chair: I want to thank the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation for its participation in this process and its valuable contribution.
Ms Barkley: For the record, I have just one thing to say that has nothing to do with politics.
The Chair: Go right ahead.
Ms Barkley: It has nothing to do with politics. It's just that we have different units that have made contributions and have briefs in there. I'd would like you to know there are several briefs from all across the province.
Mr Phillips: We would like to hear them.
Ms Barkley: I was not feeding into that; I was just suggesting there are many briefs there.
Mr Manners: We will table them with you because they provide the evidence of our presentation today.
The Chair: We appreciate that. They'll be made exhibits to this proceeding and become a part of the record. I'm confident that every committee member will read them and, of course, they'll be subject to testing of one form or another at the appropriate time.
Thank you Ms Barkley, Mr Manners, Ms Wilson and Mr Buchanan for appearing here today on behalf of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. We're grateful for your input.
1610
ONTARIO MINING ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Mining Association. Have a seat, gentlemen. My apologies for the somewhat chaotic reception. It's discourteous, to say the least, but none the less, you'll live through it. We have half an hour. Make your submissions. Try to save at least the last 15 minutes for comments and exchanges. We have your submission and your executive summary. They'll be made exhibits and form part of the record. Please go ahead. Speak directly into the microphone and you'll be picked up clearly by the technicians.
Mr John Blogg: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It's been an interesting afternoon, hasn't it?
My name is John Blogg. I'm secretary of the board of directors and manager of industrial relations for the Ontario Mining Association. With me today is Mr Ken Hughes, who's legal counsel, human resources department of Noranda Minerals. We are pleased once again to have the opportunity to provide to the standing committee on resources development the mining industry's recommendations on how a government can improve a bill which it is trying to move through the Legislature.
In view of the time constraints and the size of our brief, I'll be dealing only with the executive summary, and Mr Hughes or I will be happy to answer any questions, if time permits, after that.
Just at the beginning, there's one typo error in the second paragraph, first page: The $5 billion is $7.2 billion. I'll just make that change now, so you won't think I've misread something.
The Ontario Mining Association has been the voice of Ontario's mining industry since February 18, 1920. Today we represent 41 employers in the mining industry, who employ about 90% of the workforce. Unfortunately, Ontario's mining industry, which has historically been the province's leader in the creation of wealth, both for the government and for those who work in the industry, is in a serious decline. Since 1971, our workforce has declined from 45,000; in the last three years alone the workforce declined from 29,000 to 19,000 workers, or 34%. Two victims of this decline have been the iron ore and uranium mining industries.
Although our industry has always been small in numbers relative to other industries, on a per capita basis we have created more wealth than any other industry. In 1990, that contribution was $7.2 billion to the provincial economy. Our industry is the major creator of jobs in northern Ontario, where the majority of our members' activity exists. Mining also employs a number of people in southern Ontario, where we have a number of industrial mineral mines.
According to statistics compiled in the Ontario census, 68% of the workforce in the primary industries of northern Ontario work in the mining sector. Our industry is a major factor in the creation of jobs in the service and secondary industries of northern Ontario. In total, mining is responsible for the creation of over 200,000 jobs in northern Ontario and thousands more in southern Ontario.
The Ontario Mining Association first presented its views last August, as a member of the Employer Advisory Group on Labour Reform, to the Minister of Labour, and again during our private meetings with the minister, his deputy and staff. Our position for a balanced act has not changed, and was echoed by our members in their submissions during the minister's tour of Ontario cities regarding his Labour Relations Act discussion document. I believe this committee has heard a few of our members' presentations over the last few weeks.
Over a year ago, representatives of the Ontario Mining Association met with representatives of the Ministry of Labour, when they was in the initial phase of drafting the various recommendations. At that time, the association indicated a willingness to enter into positive dialogue on potential changes to the Labour Relations Act. To do so, we explained, the government would first need to develop a clear understanding of the consequences of any proposed legislative initiative. This was not forthcoming. However, it must be noted that the minister's Bill 40 is remarkably similar to the leaked cabinet document in content, tone and intent, and to a large degree is more onerous than those contained in his discussion paper.
If I can just digress a bit, there is another point I think I would like to make, which is not in writing. About a year ago today, I was in a meeting with the Deputy Minister of Labour and the assistant deputy minister of policy with the Employer Advisory Group on Labour Reform. On that day, both the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister of policy asked the employer community what parts of the Labour Relations Act could be amended with a minimum amount of upset for both the employer community and the labour community.
We were told at that time that it was in the very early stages of development, the government hadn't written anything, and that our comments would certainly be taken into serious consideration. On Tuesday after Labour Day the leaked document occurred. In there was a statement by the minister to the cabinet signed August 7. There was a further letter by the deputy minister in there including how to neutralize the employer resistance to the bill, dated August 12. The point I'm making is, we can sometimes understand why politicians have to be a little dishonest, but it really concerns us in the mining industry when the bureaucrats become dishonest.
Over a year ago representatives met with the Ministry of Labour. Bill 40 is remarkably similar to the cabinet document and tilts the balance decidedly in favour of labour, with total disregard for the future of jobs or investment in this province. We can only suppose that the government's failure to respond to our presentation, various independent surveys and the concerns of the business community is based on its belief that the presentations and wishes expressed were seen as a threat to the philosophical underpinnings of the government and its wish to push through its initiatives at the expense of the democratic process.
The process for consultation has been seriously flawed. Although meetings did occur, it is obvious that listening and meaningful compromise in the interest of ensuring balance in Bill 40 did not. This arbitrary approach continues to cause the OMA and its members difficulty and has created a feeling of bad faith and mistrust of the government never before experienced. The credibility gap has been widened between business and government to dangerous proportions never before seen in this province.
We believe it is important to remind the government and the standing committee on resources development that Bill 40 is but one of a number of costly legislative initiatives forced on employers which collectively have made this province less competitive and less attractive to investors. Legislation such as that contained in the wage protection act, Pay Equity Act amendments, Employment Equity Act proposals, Workers' Compensation Act, health and safety act, Mining Act and environmental regulations have introduced additional costs which business simply cannot cope with in good times, let alone during an extended recession such as we now find ourselves in.
All parties are to blame, not just the current government, for the weight of the legislation being borne by employers. However, the impact of the various pieces of labour-related legislation introduced by the current government of the NDP are the most problematic of them all.
The investment required to start a mine is as much as $400 million, plus 10 years of hard work and luck before it starts to make a profit. Mining is important to this government, to the people of this province and to Canada. It now contributes $5 billion to the Ontario gross provincial product, which in two years is a reduction of $2.2 billion. Getting the sums of money required to start a mine, given that all else is successful, hinges on the investment climate necessary for a positive employment environment in this province.
The importance of the need for a positive investment climate is obvious if mining is to remain a vital industry in Ontario. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Ontario Mining Association believes that a goal to promote innovation and enhance Ontario's competitive advantage is a valid one which deserves the support of Ontario business. However, it is unattainable by the approach being taken by the Minister of Labour with Bill 40. Bill 40 falls short of engendering any confidence in the government's ability to reflect reality in its concept of labour-management relations.
So while our submission and recommendations are directed at our serious concerns about Bill 40 and the consultation process used by the government, we urge you to look at its impact in conjunction with the other pieces of legislation passed and/or proposed by this and previous governments. Our submission today provides the details of and reasons for our recommendations. Here we provide you with the highlights and recommendations to which, as I said earlier, we are prepared to respond.
1620
First, the purposes and the purpose clauses, recommendation 1: Given Ontario's substantial record of relative industrial harmony, it does not seem appropriate to have a purpose clause fostering trade unionism as its main objective. While we recognize the government's authority to introduce legislation to benefit special-interest groups, we do not believe that any purpose clause should exist in legislation which is not reflective of the best interests of all society. This clause changes the role of third party in a labour dispute from an impartial arbitrator to bias adjudicator. As such, it tilts the balance between labour and management necessary to ensure fairness. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the purpose clause contained in these recommendations be amended to impart fairness and balance or be deleted.
Organizing activities, recommendation 2: The OMA strongly believes that the government must provide amendments which promote the democratic process. As such, we recommend that the organizing and certification of unions be subject to a government-supervised secret ballot.
Professionals, recommendation 3: The OMA recommends that professionals, other than those currently covered under the Labour Relations Act, not be permitted to unionize, as the potential for a conflict of interest and withdrawal of necessary services is too potentially damaging to the Ontario public.
Security guards, recommendation 4: The OMA recommends that section 12 of the current Ontario Labour Relations Act, which addresses the issue of security guards, be retained, as it provides fair and balanced legislation which prevents the potential for conflict of interest between a security guard and his or her employer in the conduct of normal job duties.
Certification process, recommendation 5: The OMA wishes to repeat recommendation 2 in its belief that a democratic government-supervised secret ballot must be incorporated in the legislation as part of the certification process.
Revocation of initial decision to join a union, recommendation 6: The OMA believes that citizens of Ontario should be entitled to the same protection, whether rendering a contractual decision with respect to their employment or purchasing a product. Therefore, we recommend that the amendments to the Labour Relations Act include a provision similar to subsection 21(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides a cooling-off period of 48 hours during which time individuals can rescind their initial decision without penalty.
Financial demonstration of intent, recommendation 7: The OMA believes individuals need to have cause to seriously consider their decision to belong to a union and believe it appropriate that an initiation fee equivalent to one month's dues be paid by those signing a union card as financial demonstration of the seriousness and intent of their decision.
Petitions, recommendation 8: Again, the OMA recommends that a reasonable solution to the problems with petitions would be to require a democratic government-supervised vote by confidential ballot. Such a vote would indicate to the union, the employees, the employer and the public that the true interests of employees were being taken into consideration.
Consolidation of bargaining units, recommendation 9: The OMA is of the view and recommends that there be no consolidation of bargaining units unless both parties are signatories to the request for such actions. This is essentially important if cooperation, consultation and participation of the workplace parties are the objectives of the amendments to the Labour Relations Act.
First-agreement arbitration, recommendation 10: The current provisions should be maintained. They contain reasonable provisions to ensure that an attempt has been made by both parties to arrive at a collective agreement through the process of collective bargaining. Those safeguards, and an objective determination as to whether certain criteria have been met are, in our view, essential.
Replacement workers, recommendation 11: The OMA suggests that if an employee may freely exercise his right to strike and withdraw his services, the only quid pro quo that is acceptable is to permit the employer to freely exercise his right to operate. As such, the right of employers must also be protected in this act, which includes the right to use workers not in the bargaining unit to maintain their operation.
On the issue of third-party pickets, recommendation 12: Until a review of all laws relevant to the process of picketing has been completed, it would to us be inappropriate to consider any amendments to the right to picket at this time.
On the arbitration process, our recommendation 13: The OMA believes that the process of arbitration should be left to the parties to determine and not the OLRB, unless all avenues for agreement have been exhausted.
Under the Ontario Labour Relations Board's powers, recommendation 14: The OLRB should not be given direction which is unbalanced in favour of the union and possibly contradictory of the reality of the specific situation.
On the just-cause clause, recommendation 15: The OMA, in its desire to ensure balance, recommends for probationary employees the inclusion of the following language to the just-cause clause in Bill 40:
"During the probationary period, the employer may terminate a probationary employee by way of discharge or otherwise if the employee has not, in the opinion of the employer, demonstrated such abilities and qualifications necessary for regular employment. A probationary employee may take advantage of the grievance and arbitration procedure."
That's a direct lift from a labour relations act in another province.
In summary, the Ontario Mining Association believes that the goal, "To promote innovation and enhance Ontario's competitive advantage," is a valid one which deserves the support of Ontario business but that it is unobtainable by the approach being taken by the minister in Bill 40. The bill falls short of engendering any confidence in the government's ability to reflect reality in its concept of labour-management relations. Government initiatives should be directed towards creating an environment whereby the levels of confidence in this province are increased. The thrust of the government should be to create a climate whereby business will continue to invest in Ontario and will be encouraged to risk investing. The government should also be addressing its initiatives to the creation of an environment which would maintain and create further employment.
Unlike some arguments you've heard, our argument is not with unions but with Bill 40. If Bill 40 reflects the position of the government towards the concepts of labour relations to be practised in this province, then there will be an ongoing major need for our members to re-evaluate their investment decisions. The OMA fears that these amendments, with their lack of balance and substance, will not create any additional jobs or investment in Ontario. On the contrary, we see only lost jobs, lost investment and a lost opportunity for Ontario to regain the prosperity it once knew.
The Chair: Three minutes per caucus.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I believe this is the final presentation of this five-week period, and it's unfortunate, because, as you know, we believe there are many other groups and associations that have matters and issues to be brought forward to this committee on this bill such as you have. I certainly do thank you for coming.
There have been some areas we have heard which you have touched upon today, and I must say I think the concerns you have brought forward are not those of a hysterical group, but rather of those who have read the bill, have looked at the bill in terms of what it means to them and have thought about what true choice means to the workers of this province.
I think that's brought forward in your position on giving workers the right to choose, democratically, free from coercion and intimidation and with full notice. I would like you to comment on that particular aspect of the presentation.
Some of the issues you've brought forward have been brought forward by many different employers' groups, not in an hysterical mode, no matter how others might wish to characterize it, because that just doesn't happen to be the case, but brought forward in a concerned, thoughtful, and from my point of view and from this side, certainly a thankful way. You've helped, as others have, in understanding the true ramifications of what this legislation means. So my question to you is on the issue of democracy, the issue of the rights of workers to be able to choose, and your thoughts and feelings on that.
1630
Mr Blogg: If you don't mind, could I have the chairman of our industrial relations committee, who helped draft this, answer that question.
Mr Offer: Sure.
Mr Ken Hughes: When we took a look at the draft recommendations, we were particularly chagrined to see, in our estimation, an absolute abrogation of an individual's right to decide. Our perception is that the legislation has made a prima facie assumption that employees can only be protected by virtue of a collective, whether they have a feeling or an affinity for that collective or not.
Unfortunately, we believe that legislative thrust is inconsistent with the reality of today's society, that individuals today desire a freedom of choice and a freedom of expression. If an individual desires to join a union, that should be his prerogative, but the remainder of society should be assured that the individual's decision was made openly and fairly and learnedly and that there is some mechanism he can use to ratify that decision.
Unfortunately--I heard the previous submission, I heard some rather hysterical comments, I'm sure you've heard some comments from employers that fall within the same category--what you have done with this piece of legislation is, you have polarized in many ways labour and management in this province. It is something this province is going to take a long time to get over. Whatever you do in the way of legislation to bring it back into balance, to give us some sense of feeling, as employers and as employees and as unions, that the freedom of choice has been sanctified in the legislation and is protected in the legislation is vital to this province.
The Chair: Ms Witmer, and then Mr Turnbull, please.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much to the Ontario Mining Association for an excellent presentation. You have done what many other individuals and groups have done. You have presented us with 15 excellent recommendations for changes to Bill 40, and certainly it's my sincere hope that the government will seriously consider the amendments you have brought forward and will incorporate those into the changes it makes. I say to you, as the final presenters, thank you for your presentation.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you very much for a thoughtful presentation. I would like just for a moment to touch on the fact that you talk about a brief which talked about neutralizing the opposition which was prepared for the minister. I think this is scandalous. The people of Ontario have a right to expect better conduct than that. To have a government that's funded by the taxpayers, whether they voted for this party or not, to be neutralizing the people who oppose it is wrong.
I am aware that your industry has chosen Ontario on a worldwide basis, that there's a significant number of head offices of companies that may have their ownership in other countries that have chosen of their own volition to have their head offices in Ontario. Are you concerned that this has the implication that we may actually lose the confidence of that international community and in fact lose head offices as well?
Mr Blogg: The studies you quoted earlier this afternoon from Ernst and Young seem to indicated--and they were blind studies done--that is the case. What our industry is likely to do is re-evaluate its investment in this province. Mines don't move. They're there. They're going to be there as long as there's ore in the ground. But our members may decide to put their mining investment in other countries where they in fact operate and therefore reduce investment in this province until the climate is better. That certainly is possible.
You've heard the presentations from Inco, from Falconbridge, from Westroc Industries here in southern Ontario, all members of ours. All of them are indicating that this is a concern of theirs and that it is certainly an option open to them if the environment is not conducive to good employment and good labour relations and good investment.
Ms Murdock: Thank you, John, for joining us today. Actually, when I was looking at the $7.2 billion in 1990 from the provincial economy, I was thinking back to when I was growing up in Sudbury of how many millions and billions of dollars left the north and we never saw the benefit of it actually, except for the salaries basically that they spent in the community, but from government--
As you know, my father was a miner for 37 years at Inco, and of course having grown up in Sudbury I've been experienced with Inco and Falconbridge over the years. With Inco in particular, we had the two big strikes. Basically, neither Falconbridge nor Inco have ever used replacement workers at any time, even in the old days, when mining was considered pretty rough and tough and anything went.
I know too the relationship between Inco and Falconbridge and both of their unions, the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers and the Steelworkers, has been very good, particularly in the last 10 years or so, the conversations and the development. I was sort of hoping you would have mentioned that. I'm sure that they're two examples of your whole industry.
I know there are some problems in some areas of the country, but basically the relationships that have developed in the mining industry are good ones and I was hoping that you would have addressed yourself to how those came about. I'm sort of disappointed that you haven't, so I was wondering if you could comment on the record now.
Mr Hughes: I think you've had submissions from Inco and from Falconbridge. I would be more comfortable if you had addressed that issue to them. By and large, I would say that in general the relationship between the mining industry and the unions it deals with have attained a relative degree of maturity over time and over adversity.
There is a reality in the mining industry that mines do close as you run out of ore, that communities exist--
Ms Murdock: Or as the price of nickel goes down, yes.
Mr Hughes: Or as the price of uranium goes down as well, yes. I think there is a greater sensitivity as a result on both the management and union side, employer and employee side, to the sensitivities they have within an overall community.
Ms Murdock: Just one comment on the leaked cabinet document, because there were 17 cabinet submissions that went to cabinet before we even sat down to do the discussion paper. That was one of them, and obviously what started in submission number one was significantly different from what ended up in the discussion paper. I believe the leaked document was about 12.
The Chair: Do you want these people to respond to this?
Ms Murdock: It doesn't matter if you respond, because you've already made your comments quite clear on the record.
The Chair: Let them respond.
Mr Hughes: That's right, but I think the point is not what number of document it is; the point is we were told on a Thursday that there was nothing in writing and we found out on a Tuesday that there was in fact something in writing and a method by which to neutralize the employer community. That was the issue I was making. We were not told the truth, so any input we would have had would have been almost irrelevant. That was the point.
Can I correct one more thing? You said the money left the north and went south. I think you have to agree that Falconbridge and Inco have been primarily the drivers behind the revitalization of Sudbury, the reforestation and all the good environmental things that are going on up there right now.
Ms Murdock: Yes, but--
The Chair: I want to thank you kindly on behalf of the committee for your participation in this process. You've provided us with insight into a unique and substantial industry in the province. We appreciate your interest and the time you've taken to be here with us this afternoon. Thank you, gentlemen. Take care.
Are there any other matters for the committee? I want to thank committee members for their cooperation throughout the last five weeks, for their senses of humour, which persisted.
Mr Turnbull: Point of order.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Turnbull: I just want to say what a fine committee chairman you've been.
The Chair: God bless you, Mr Turnbull.
In particular the staff, who have been particularly helpful, the research office staff, both of them--the two research officers have worked hard and done a significant and commendable job. The Hansard office has been of great assistance; the technical staff, who control the sound and video and the legislative broadcast, have performed outstandingly and the Clerk's office, Todd Decker in particular, has provided assistance without which this committee could not have functioned.
We thank once again David Augustyn, the co-op student from University of Waterloo who was with us for the first four weeks, who has now returned to school and who demonstrated talent, maturity and capacity to work, which is typical of people who live on Port Robinson Road West in Thorold in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula.
Thank you kindly. We're adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1641.