Employment Standards
Act, 2000, Bill 147, Mr Stockwell /Loi
de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi, projet de loi 147,
M. Stockwell
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair /
Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale
PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Hon Chris Stockwell, Minister of Labour
Mr John Hill, solicitor, Ministry of Labour
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff /Personnel
Ms Elizabeth Baldwin, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1535 in committee room
1.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LES
NORMES D'EMPLOI
Consideration of Bill 147, An
Act to revise the law related to employment standards / Projet de
loi 147, Loi portant révision du droit relatif aux normes
d'emploi.
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd
like to call the standing committee on general government to
order to deal with clause-by-clause on Bill 147, An Act to revise
the law related to employment standards.
Minister Stockwell has asked
me whether the committee members would be amenable, given that we
have relatively limited time, to dispense with the normal
procedure of starting with the clauses that have no amendments
and instead going right to the amendments.
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): With flexibility. During
comments, if someone chooses to make reference back to the main
bill, they won't be ruled out of order.
The Chair:
Absolutely, Mr Christopherson. Your observations at any time can
be relevant to any section. But if the committee would prefer, we
could start right with section 17, which is the first section
with an amendment. Obviously at some point we would revert to
section 1.
Is there unanimous agreement
to do that?
Mr
Christopherson: Again, Chair, I realize this was in the
interests of saving time so we don't get lost in procedure, but
on the other hand, just starting at amendment 1 and working our
way through may or may not get us to some amendments that need to
be talked about. I'm just wondering if we can't have some
discretion on the part of each of the caucuses to put before the
committee a particular amendment they wish to speak to.
The Chair:
If you'd like, if the committee sees fit, we certainly can do
that, Mr Christopherson, in which case are you suggesting we go
into rotation and pick amendments?
Mr
Christopherson: I'm flexible as to how you'd like to go,
but that sounds good.
The Chair:
Just so we have some order. All right, let's do that.
Mr
Christopherson: And then limit it, if you will, so that
at the end of the day each of us has had 20 minutes.
The Chair: I
will certainly endeavour-if members respect the time, the Chair
will certainly undertake to provide that.
We'll start first with the
Liberals, if there's a particular amendment.
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): I'll defer to Dominic Agostino for the first
comment.
Mr Dominic Agostino
(Hamilton East): It would be government motion number 4,
the amendment on the two-year period. As we said in the House
today, we have a concern and maybe a question for the minister on
this, as well. As I said in the House, the concern is now that
when someone walks in the first day on the job, they're basically
going to be forced to sign a two-year agreement for the averaging
of overtime. Then they can only get out of it if both parties
agree. That's a long period of time. We understand the
explanation about the flexibility and the options and yes, it's
only a maximum, but the reality is that we're talking about in
this case the potential for five million mostly non-unionized,
low-paid workers who don't have the clout and the ability of a
union to represent them.
Frankly, we're talking about
a lot of single moms, we're talking about a lot of new Canadians
and new immigrants who will walk into a job situation and
basically be forced to sign this two-year agreement. Let's face
it: it is clearly to the employer's advantage and not to the
worker's advantage to sign this two-year agreement. But often it
will become, through the back door, a condition of employment and
if they don't sign this they're not going to get the job or
they'll be fired the next day. That's the concern we have when
you look at this.
As you talk about the
averaging out, maybe the minister can explain to me what would
happen in a situation where, say, you took the four-week formula
that is there, and someone-as of now it's 44 hours per week, and
after 44 hours you get overtime. If someone in a four-week period
worked 52 hours the first week, 40 the second, 40 the third and
40 the fourth week, that would average out to 43 hours per week
over the period. Would they get any overtime under that
provision?
Hon Chris Stockwell
(Minister of Labour): Only if they agreed not to get
overtime.
Mr Agostino:
If they signed to average it out over four weeks-
Hon Mr
Stockwell: If they signed an agreement that said, "I
want you to average my weekly pay, my weekly hours, over a four-week period, and I worked 52
hours one week and I want you explicitly to average those out
over the next three weeks," so they cap out at 43 a week, sure,
that could happen, but only on consent of the employee. If you're
working 40, 40, 40 and 56, the employee would say, "No, I want
the 44 to 56 as overtime."
Mr Agostino:
But under the old rules, within that four-week period, you would
automatically get overtime after 44 hours. If there's no
agreement signed, if you work 52 hours the first week, after your
44-hour time, you would get your eight hours of overtime.
1540
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Under the old system, if you applied for a
permit, you could do exactly the same thing. By permit, you can
average overtime by agreement with the employee. The employer
could apply for the permit from the Ministry of Labour. The
permit would then allow the employer to average overtime. That's
no different. By simply getting a permit, you could do exactly
that under the old system.
Mr Agostino:
You don't see the potential here again. As much as you claim
there's protection in here and provisions for complaining, can
you understand though the potential that is there for the abuse,
particularly of newer workers and younger workers?
The balance of power with an
18-year-old or 20-year-old kid working and an owner or employer
in a small firm, a small company, non-unionized, as much as we
want to talk in an ideal world, it would be the reality in the
real world that it is not there. The power is with the employer.
The employee is basically at the mercy of the owner of that
company and his goodwill and his fairness. If that doesn't exist,
then this new legislation forces him into a very difficult
situation that they can't get out of for two years unless they
both agree. Of course, if it is to the advantage of the employer,
they're not going to agree.
The unfortunate part is we
have such little time to debate and discuss all of these
amendments. That's only one of the many concerns we have.
Certainly I wish we actually had more time because I think this
bill is significant. The concern generally with all of this is
the fact that this bill has not had one minute, one second of
public hearings.
There was consultation over
the summer, in general; there was a white paper put out by the
government. In many cases, members of the opposition were not
invited to attend the hearings or the briefings that occurred. In
some cases, members went. We think in a bill that impacts five
million Ontarians, which is a significant amount of our
population who could be faced with the repercussions of this
bill, the government at least owed the opportunity to some of
those people to come forward and tell us if they agreed or
disagreed.
I have not heard from one
working person in the province of Ontario who has called my
office and said, "This is good. I want this bill." Certainly we
know from the comments that have been made that business, the
chamber of commerce, those folks are going to be very happy with
this bill and are in support of this bill. I think it is
extremely unfair that we have not had one second of public
hearings on this bill. It is nothing short of a disgrace.
Interjection.
Mr Agostino:
You don't have to tell me that you had the consultation over the
summer; we know that. But the bill, as it is now in front of us,
has not had one second of public hearings.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: To go through the history of the thing, you
understand that two or three years ago this process began under
Elizabeth Witmer, who was Minister of Labour at the time. She
issued a white paper seeking input from all the affected parties:
unions, business, non-union sectors and so on. She received
hundreds and hundreds of submissions. Upon receiving those
submissions, we read them and we dealt with them. From those
submissions we created the white paper in the summer. That white
paper then was created through submissions given to us by the
community out there; as I said, hundreds of them.
That white paper then was
issued to everybody it affected. If you wrote in to us, you were
given the white paper. If you were a union or anyone else we sent
it out to your business organization, as well as the members of
House and the opposition. Then, yes, we did tour that white
paper. I invited both yourself and Mr Christopherson to appear to
make a deputation. I understand Christopherson had some
difficulty in Toronto and he went to Ottawa to make a deputation.
I appreciate the fact that he made that effort. Furthermore, I
actually invited the members in the communities I went to.
We took ads in all the local
papers to inform the community and hopefully the member that we
were coming in to that community to hold this public hearing-I
misspoke myself. Lyn McLeod actually showed up in Thunder Bay and
Mr Crozier showed up in Windsor.
Then we went around the
province to five or six cities and held public hearings. I think
we actually accommodated every single person who made a request
to make a deputation, every one of them. It meant we had to add
days at certain sites to make sure we gave everybody time to make
their deputation. That was the genesis of the bill.
The bill fundamentally is
factual and very, very close to what the white paper was. There
were amendments made. Those amendments were put forward by the
unions and the executive and those people who made those
requests. We accommodated those, particularly in a section with
respect to inspectors and their request that they need more
power. They need a ton more power and we've increased their power
significantly. A lot of those came from the legal clinics and the
unions that we spoke to. So, yes, it hasn't received what you
classify as a committee process of public hearings, but in a
three-year period it got a lot of publication, a lot of debate, a
lot of discussion and a lot of input from people in the
province.
Mr Agostino:
One more quick question. Where did the request for this bill come
from? Was it labour unions? Was it working people who felt they
wanted the 60-hour workweek and the overtime provision or did the
initiative to change this legislation come from the business
community?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: There were two places, basically. One, it was
in the Blueprint that we campaigned on in 1999. We spoke in the
Blueprint to a flexible workweek and the kinds of amendments to
the Employment Standards Act that would allow that. That's the
first place. The second place was the number of permits we
received, that the NDP government issued, that the Liberal
government issued and that we issued; they were significant,
thousands and thousands and thousands of permits to exempt them
from the Employment Standards Act. It was getting to the point
that with the exclusions we had in mining, hospitals, tourism,
all these sectors, and the exemptions that we were allowing under
the permit system, that we all allowed under the permit system,
we were in the situation of getting close to having more people
working outside of the Employment Standards Act than working
inside the Employment Standards Act. So it became a process that
we had a bill that was so arcane, archaic and outdated that there
were more people working outside that bill than inside. That was
the genesis of why we wanted to address the situation.
I'm not suggesting the unions
support the bill. I understand their position. But I think they
agreed at the outset that the bill needed to be addressed; it was
arcane, archaic and it was contradictory in a number of places.
I'm not going to tell you that they liked the outcome, that's not
my position, but I think that everyone agreed, in the beginning
at least, that the bill was seriously flawed and was not doing
what it was supposed to do when it was adopted in 1968.
Mr Levac: I
guess I would echo the concerns of my colleague Dominic and
basically ask this question. Since October 1999, this particular
government has used time allocation 20 times, and three or four
of those particular bills used with time allocation-and I want to
make it very clear that the entry into the discussion is one
thing but after the fact is another. So what we're talking about
is somebody who wants to say that the briefings and all of the
ideas and your input was taken, but I want to make it very clear
that was before the bill was drafted and completed and presented
to the House. After the House presents that bill, time allocation
gets presented in three, four now, very significant changes.
Quotes from some of the ministers who are producing some of these
bills are saying, "This is a fundamental change in the way we're
going to operate with this bill." Time allocation was applied,
particularly into a lot of the labour issues that we're seeing in
our government today.
My concern is the balance
between whether or not consultation is taking place before the
bill's drafted and after the fact. We now have this bill before
us, which has not had the consultation process after the fact to
provide amendments. As a matter of fact, we have an entire binder
filled with amendments from the government side, one from the NDP
side, and from our side we've basically said it's going to take
us the entire committee work because of time allocation to get
through the bill itself. So inside of that, I'm going to ask this
question. Is it the government's intention to continue to pass
legislation with time allocation, with, after the fact,
discussion and input by the province's citizens negated because
of the way the rules work?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Let me say first off, I think there are 24
amendments in total-I could be off, I'm not sure-one from the
NDP, 23 from us. It's a big bill. That's why we spent three years
working on the bill. I'm not going to go into the history too
much, but I sat in your place on a number of occasions and 23
amendments was not a significant number of amendments. In the
NDP's term, I actually saw them produce more amendments than
clauses in a bill, in some instances; literally hundreds of
amendments to a bill that only had 99 clauses. So I wouldn't
suggest that this is some kind of onerous, outstanding, unusual
number of amendments when you get to 23, when you're dealing with
a bill of this size.
1550
With respect to your argument
about after the fact, before the fact, I guess we have a systemic
disagreement. I feel that we've canvassed the communities and
have done our best. I've heard the opposition and I've heard
their complaints about the bill. I'm not trying to dismiss their
complaints. I'm just suggesting that we have a fundamental
disagreement. Those are the complaints that you've registered.
I've tried to respond to them in the House as directly as I can.
I believe, with the implementation of the new fines, the
incarceration, the powers of inspection, the spot audits, the
anonymous tips, the posting of your employees' rights-all these
kinds of things work toward protecting that vulnerable worker
that weren't in the bill before. Also, the fact that they can
take any reprisal and reinsert somebody back into a job, they
couldn't do before.
So if your question is, have
I heard the issues, I think I've heard them clearly and I've
tried to respond clearly. I guess you're saying my response isn't
acceptable. I'm not surprised, but I believe the kinds of things
we've implemented in this bill go a long way to protect employees
that weren't there under the old Employment Standards Act.
Mr Levac:
Just to comment on that, just a quick rebuttal. I would suggest
to you respectfully that a lot of those things that you had to
write into the bill weren't necessary because the previous
legislation didn't require it.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: You mean-
Mr Levac: A
lot of the protections that you're saying are implemented in the
bill that didn't exist before, maybe it was because a lot of the
things that could be contemplated now because of the legislation
weren't there in the first place. Therefore you didn't need to
have the protections in place in order to do some of the things
that you're saying you need to do.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: With respect, you're the only person saying
that, then. Basically everybody, from the NDP to the unions to the Liberals to ourselves,
was saying you've got to give more powers to the inspectors
because there are shortcomings here. The shortcomings are they
don't have the power to reinstate, so if somebody actually wanted
to complain about their employer and then their employer appealed
it, they'd be out of work for six months-no paycheque, no food to
put on the table, nothing. They couldn't pay their bills while
this appeal was made to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. So
this employee would be out of luck. Under our new provision they
can make the appeal, but if the inspector says, "You're going
back to work," you go back to work. You get paid while that
appeal is being registered and you won't miss a day's pay. So
with great respect, I'm not sure that's true.
Secondly, there's this
misconception under the old permit system that somehow these are
kind of new initiatives. The vast majority of the thousands and
thousands and thousands of permits we issued, you issued and the
NDP issued talked about extending work hours beyond 48, sometimes
beyond 60, averaging overtime, one day off at a time rather than
a weekly process.
The thing with the permit
that was unacceptable to me was it ran forever. Once you got a
permit, you never had to reapply. What we're saying in our
amendments is that's not good. You can only make the agreement to
work these conditions for a maximum of two years and the employee
can invoke anything less than two years-two months, three
months.
This misconception on the
permit system was some kind of fantasy that somehow the permit
system gave you protection. Once you got the permit, you were
completely unprotected. So I don't agree with you.
Mr Levac:
That's fair. Just one last quick question, and it will require a
two-second answer.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I'll be the judge of that.
Mr Levac:
Believe me, Chris, you'll hear it. How many inspectors do you
plan to hire?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: We're going to increase inspection staff by
20%. In whole numbers, we basically have around 100. We're going
to hire 20 more inspectors.
Mr
Christopherson: Just to respond to the minister, first
of all, on your commentabout the permit system, I don't think
anyone would disagree that the permit system needed to be looked
at, but the idea that the best thing for the permit system was to
throw it out entirely and keep the ministry out of workplaces in
terms of the amount of hours that people have to work is the
wrong way to go. Just to say that there were problems, as your
government has done on many occasions-identify a problem and then
say, "We've identified it, we're going to do something, and
therefore you should believe it's better." No, in most of those
cases you've identified a problem, stepped in and done something
and made it even worse. Eliminating the permit system is going to
make it worse.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Well-
Mr
Christopherson: Let me mention all my issues and then
you can respond. First of all, there's our position and comment
with regard to the permit system. Of course, that's impossible to
do with the obscene shortness of the time that's available.
Also, you spoke with great
pride just a few minutes ago, Minister, about how your law makes
sure that inspectors have the power to reinstate a worker who has
been wrongly dismissed for whatever reason. You thought that was
an important measure because people have bills to pay and food to
put on the table. I just wish that you, as the Minister of
Labour, would also apply that to someone who's been fired because
of an organizing drive. We used to have legislation in this
province that said that the board-
Interruption.
The Chair:
Order. To the people in the gallery, I'm awfully indulgent as the
Chair, but we're going to get through this without any
demonstrations, please. I want to make sure that the opposition
members have as many minutes as possible to make their point
here, so please, no demonstrations.
Mr
Christopherson: Prior to your Bill 7, the board had the
ability and used it very effectively so that people weren't
intimidated in the workplace. If you feel so strongly about
people who are wronged, then you ought to take a look at the
situation at Drycore, where we have a number of workers who have
been off the job. It will be a year, I think, by the time they
get in front of a board and have their hearing. Where, then, is
your argument about their having to pay bills and put food on the
table? Why does your government feel that it's OK in the one
instance to deny people the ability to pay their bills and put
food on the table, but in this instance you want to brag about
it?
I mentioned this in the
House, and I want to say it again for purposes of today: there is
a world of difference between a public meeting that you may
choose to call a hearing, a public meeting, a gathering or
Chris's gaggle of friends, versus a committee like this, where we
have a bill in front of us, we have a procedure, we have a Chair,
we have staff and we have opportunities, as the opposition, to
ask questions, to engage in debate. That's a whole lot different
than you sitting in a rented room in a hotel having people come
in where you control entirely what happens inside that room.
Further to that, you
mentioned Elizabeth Witmer's bill when she was minister, in terms
of changing the Employment Standards Act. That was Bill 49. That
was a bill that your government said was just housekeeping;
nothing major in there. We went on the road for four weeks. At
the end of it, there were significant changes: both withdrawals
in terms of initiatives the government had undertaken because of
public pressure and improvements in areas where it was just a bad
bill-because of the construction parts of the bill that could
have been improved, and were, as a result.
To suggest that somehow Bill
49 takes you off the hook or that your little gatherings, before
the bill was tabled, are supposed to compensate for a lack of
decent time here and now doesn't hold, not by a long shot.
Further to that, if you need further evidence, the bill is
different than what you talked about. The discussion paper, the white paper you
circulated, didn't have legal language, didn't have the actual
clauses for us to look at in terms of understanding the legal
implications.
It is absolutely insulting to
suggest that today a whole new bill that replaces five other
bills and 24 pages of amendments can be dealt with basically in
an hour-because after 4:30 today we can't talk any more; it's all
straight voting. You're going to win every vote, 10 times out of
10, because you've got a majority. That somehow that constitutes
any kind of review that has meaning under any definition is
absurd.
I know what you have to say
as a minister, but you know in your heart that this is a sham.
The only reason you're ramming this through is because you want
to head off the kind of public outrage that is beginning to grow
now. It is really just starting to take effect now. The room is
full. We've had protests in downtown Toronto. We've had
occupations of offices. If there were enough time to look at
this, I believe you'd be forced to back down in some areas. You
don't want that. That's why you've made sure this thing is going
to be quick and dirty, in and out today. By the time people
realize what has hit them in the new year, it's already going to
be law. That's your game plan. We know it and in your heart of
hearts you know that's what's going on too. This process is a
joke and an insult to the people of Ontario.
1600
If I can, I'd like to talk
about three specific amendments, in no particular order. I would
draw to the attention of the minister our amendment, the only one
we brought in. You have said on many occasions that nobody needs
to worry about the horrible aspects of this bill because they all
have the right to voluntarily say no. You're prepared to say it,
but you're not prepared to put it in the law.
Our amendment covers off a
number of the major areas of concern that people have, that we
have and that we've been hearing about. I heard what you said in
the House. I heard what you said to me in our short discussion
before question period. I've taken a look at this law. For the
life of me, I can't understand where you feel you have the right
to say no to codifying in law the very things you're prepared to
verbally say people have rights to.
I'm asking you, Minister, why
will you not accept an amendment that says people have the
right-and it just spells them out specifically, so that employers
and employees know their rights and obligations. It merely states
it, because the reprisal section, section 18, does not cover
this. We've mentioned the after 48 hours, splitting the 30-minute
meal break into two sections, the averaging of overtime and the
vacation in terms of shorter periods taken in small clumps of
time.
We said, "At the very least,
put that in there as a new sub (9) to ensure that everybody
understands what you have said they have rights to verbally." Why
won't you put that in the bill?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: OK. I'll respond in order. The permit system:
the rationale for the permit system is simply this. We would have
a series of civil servants working on a permit system who were
spending time rubber-stamping permits. Basically, that's what it
came down to. They weren't going out and actively inspecting or
seeking whether or not the employees agreed or didn't agree with
the employer's request. It was simply too onerous because we were
issuing so many permits. It was becoming too big a job.
Rather than use those people
to rubber-stamp permits, it seemed to me it would be more
intelligent to hire inspectors who could actively get out into
the workplace and get to those places where people needed
inspections and needed protection. That was my take on it. I
didn't really think it was sensible for government to pay people
to rubber-stamp permits. Why not take that money and use it for
inspection, to put teeth in the bill to protect the vulnerable
worker? That would have been far wiser money spent by any
government. I think if any of you were in power, you would have
agreed to that. It's a better way to spend money.
With respect to the
intimidation possibilities, this is the clause in the Employment
Standards Act that we brought forward. There are many areas on
which you and I disagree.
Mr
Christopherson: We're not going to get to debate those
because there's not enough time.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: No, but we've had a very vigorous debate
about these over the years, for sure, and certainly in the last
few months. That's just our approach to this with the Employment
Standards Act. That's why we wanted to hire these, to protect
those vulnerable workers out there. They are there; I don't deny
it. There are bad employers out there. I've said it on a number
of occasions. The bad employers need to be vigorously prosecuted.
But if you're using people to stamp permits, you're not spending
the money to get inspectors out there to vigorously prosecute
them.
As far as the public hearings
are concerned, Chris's gaggle of friends, that includes Sid Ryan,
Anne Dubas and all those folks from all the unions from across
this province. This was no Chris's gaggle of friends. This was
virtually dominated by the unions, union executive, legal aid
clinics and workers' associations. There were two or three
deputations in the whole time-maybe more than two or three, but a
few-from chambers of commerce or business associations. The vast
majority came from the union side.
We accommodated every single
person who requested to make a deputation. They had half an hour
for their deputations. Every single person who asked to make a
deputation, we accommodated. We heard from them all. There were
demonstrations. Mr Ryan organized a demonstration during his
period. It wasn't like I was hiding in the weeds. We were out
front meeting with the people, giving them the opportunity,
making the demonstration-there was certainly some media attention
as well.
Legal language: the reason we
didn't use the legal language-and as far as you're concerned I
can't help but come back
to the social contract when you talk about public hearings. That
debate has been had and I've used it before, but, my goodness,
when you changed labour legislation it gutted collective
agreements for public servants all across the province, hundreds
of thousands of them. You didn't have five seconds of public
hearings. You didn't have a white paper. You didn't have five
seconds, so I'm not sure you have a really good leg to stand on,
on that one.
With respect to legal
language, you're right. I asked them not to produce the white
paper in legal language. That was my request. I take that. I
didn't produce it in legal language because I thought it would be
counterproductive to send this out to a bunch of people around
the province who are not lawyers, and then put it in legal
language they couldn't understand. It didn't make sense to me to
get a bunch of lawyers to draft up a white paper for people to
scratch their heads over.
We did it in non-technical
language. We did it in layman's language that we use when we
debate the bill in the House, quite often on a number of
occasions. Some of us aren't lawyers. We often review this stuff
with lawyers; we have that capacity. But many people in the
province who read the white paper don't have access to a lawyer
to have it explained it to them. Yes, that's what I did. We
converted their recommendations into language for the bill. So,
yes, I did that.
There are two very important
points about your amendments. Your amendments deal with three or
four very specific parts of the legislation.
Mr
Christopherson: Exactly.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: The bill gives the employees the right to
refuse across the entire bill. There are dozens and dozens of
sections within the bill that they have the right to refuse. If
we inserted your amendments-that is all covered in the bill, that
is all covered in different sections of the bill-then we would be
inserting in the bill a tremendous ambiguity, because the body of
the bill would say, "The employee has the right to refuse in all
these cases." But then we'd throw this in that says, "And the
employee has the right to refuse in these three or four specific
cases." That then means, if it gets challenged, that a judge or a
court is going to have to say, "Which part of the bill is right
here? Do you only have the right to refuse on these three or
four, or is the body of the bill right, where you can refuse on
dozens and dozens of sections of the bill?"
It's restrictive. This would
take rights away from employees. It would remove their rights. It
would take a right that we've built into this, that they could
refuse certain parts of the job, and it would say that they could
no longer refuse it because we've got an ambiguous section in the
bill that says they only have the right to refuse on three or
four issues.
I tried to explain it to you.
I appreciate the fact that you don't agree, but my legal counsel
whom I have consulted at the Ministry of Labour, at the Attorney
General's office, and legislative counsel who drafted the bill
said, "This is not going to do anything but hinder employees'
rights."
Mr
Christopherson: OK. Quickly, then, to respond, because I
don't want to keep debating on the non-amendment issues, I still
would say to you that if you'd said that as part of the process
you wanted to sit down and look at how we might improve the
permit system and invited submissions on how that might happen,
then we probably would have a very different bill right now. I
can tell you, the labour movement believes that there ought to be
some permit system in place. They recognize its imperfections.
Former Labour Minister Bob Mackenzie was very clear that he
didn't agree with it either, but just throwing the whole thing
out doesn't necessarily, and certainly doesn't in this case, make
it better, Minister. The problem is, you didn't invite anybody.
There's nobody here who's been given a chance to come to the end
of the table and tell us what they think about the permit system,
or anything else for that matter.
Next, you commented about the
fact that most of your public hearings were dominated by unions
who made presentations. Well, let me tell you, we all know your
business friends have got all the access they need to you and
every other minister, so of course they don't have to utilize any
kind of public process. It's everybody else who's left trying to
beg and scrape an opportunity to have a minute of the minister's
ear.
With regard to your comments
about this bill, you know I'm not a lawyer and you're not a
lawyer. In fact, our backgrounds and our level of formal
education are very similar. I might be right and you might be
right, but you know what? We're not going to get any opportunity
to bring in a different legal point of view because there are
different legal opinions. That's why we have courts. So you may
decide that there's a great comfort level for you to stand behind
your ministry lawyers. That by no means suggests it's the end of
the debate. In fact, it's just the beginning of the debate,
except we're not going to get a chance to have that debate.
So your argument doesn't
hold. If there's a legal problem with the way this is worded, I
would still leave it with you, Minister. There is nothing under
the reprisal section that gives legal force to the voluntary
aspect that you've given verbal attention to but no legal
attention. To say to me that somehow it detracts under the
reprisal section of section 18 may or may not be true, but to
dismiss the whole thing out of hand, to emphasize under every
section where you can that an employer is not to intimidate and
an employee doesn't have to accept intimidation, I would suggest
to you is inviting employers to intimidate and that's exactly
what's going to happen, and I think you know that.
1610
I want to move on, if I
can, to two other amendments. One is the amendment that I raised
with you in the House with regard to the two years. I believe
Dominic raised it also. Under this amendment, as we understand
it-I want you to tell me where you think this is a
misinterpretation-here's a scenario: somebody gets hired for a
job. They don't have a legal background. The limited formal
education you and I have looks like tons of formal education
compared to where this individual is at. They may or may not have English as their
first language, but they go in and they're thankful beyond belief
that they've got an opportunity for a job because they haven't
been able to find one for months and months. Those of us who have
been in that position can understand the mindset when you walk in
and they say to you, "You've got the job. You can start on
Monday. The only thing we need to do is sign a few papers
here."
How many of us remember
those papers or give any thought to whether you're going to sit
back and say, "Well, hang on a second now. Let me just check this
out to see if I agree"? That is not how you're going to start
your new workplace employment. The fact of the matter is, you're
going to sign the income tax forms that it takes, any WCB or WSIB
forms it takes, and if they put one in front of you and they say
to you, "This is the policy. It's the new government law. This
merely gives legal effect to the law," and you sign your name on
the dotted line, at that moment, unless your employer agrees to
release you from that agreement, you are now bound for those two
years to live with overtime averaging, which means you're going
to get screwed out of overtime. I'd like you to tell me,
Minister, where legally I've got this wrong.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: If you're saying to me that you walk in there
and you sign things that you haven't read or that you're not
understanding etc, it's very difficult for me to make an argument
with you, because the simple fact is the system today is built on
agreements, many agreements. The system we got for permits is
based on agreement. It's no different. If you have an employer
who applies for a permit, it's based on the fact that the
employees agree to these terms and conditions.
At some point in time, in
order to have a permit system or any other system, there's got to
be a process put in place that asks for agreement between the
employee and the employer. So I say to the member, it's not
different from the old system. Under the old system, the employer
would file for a permit based on the fact he had agreement from
an employee or if the employee wanted to work there with this
permit, he would hire them based on those conditions of the
permit.
Mr
Christopherson: But my point-
Hon Mr
Stockwell: But the point that I think you should make,
too, is this: what was the difference when you did the Sunday
shopping law? It's the same thing. When you apply for a job where
you've got to work on Sundays, the employer says, "Well, you're
working on Sundays." It's the same law that you put in. So the
person has to work on Sundays; it happens all the time.
Mr
Christopherson: There's a world of difference between
understanding that you're going to work on Sunday versus giving
away money that you're otherwise entitled-
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Well-
Mr
Christopherson: Wait a minute now. I'm talking about a
scenario. You know what? Even if they do understand what the law
is, I'm suggesting that people are going to feel pressured. I'm
giving you the good case scenario; I'm not giving you the one
where they're quietly taken aside and there are absolutely no
witnesses and they're told very clearly, "You better sign this
thing, because you haven't been performing up to snuff lately and
I've got a whole lot of people who are anxious to come in here
and they'll work for less money. So you'd better sign this thing
and agree to it or you're out the door." If you think that's not
going to happen, you live in a different Ontario than I do.
The fact of the matter is,
that's the bad case scenario. I'm pointing out to you one that is
very likely to happen, where people are told, "Look, here's the
new law the government just brought in. It is the policy of this
company that we ask our employees to sign the form." When you're
hired as a new employee, you are so anxious you'll say yes to
just about anything. What I'm saying to you, Minister, is that
under your law, when you sign on the bottom line, you now agree
to give away overtime pay for up to two years unless your
employer agrees to take you off the hook. Why are you doing that
to people? Why would you subject them to that kind of
situation?
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Because it's the same as you were doing. It's
the same situation, by permit.
Interruption.
The Chair:
Order.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: By permit, you allowed exactly the same
situation. You issued a permit to the employer. The employer now
has a right to average overtime. If you wanted to work with that
employer, the difference was, it wasn't two years, it was
forever. You subjected them to that forever. This is
time-limiting that. They're saying that after the two years you
need to go back and get approval. Under the old system, the
permit system, you got a permit to average the overtime. You
wanted to work in a place that had a permit that could average
overtime? You had to work under those terms and conditions for
the rest of your life. How's that better?
Mr
Christopherson: You know what, Minister? If we had the
time in committee-now listen, hear me out-we could ask you and
say, "Deliver us the number of permits here of people who have
wilfully given away their overtime." I'd like to know. I think
the people here would like to know. How many people? Don't just
give us your word; make the case. Put the material in front of
us. Make the case. Because you know what? I don't think there are
that many people who, with ministry approval, have given away
their right to overtime pay for their entire work life. I just
don't happen to believe that's the case. I'd like to see you come
in here and make that argument. I don't think there's anybody in
their right mind that would agree to averaging, first of all. The
only way they would do it is if they were coerced or hoodwinked,
and either way, you've made that legal and it's wrong.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: You're suggesting to me that under the permit
system the only people that agreed to averaging overtime were
coerced or hoodwinked. You, your government and the Liberal
government, were a party-
Mr
Christopherson: Show me how many there are, Chris.
Hon Mr Stockwell:
-duplicitous-
Mr
Christopherson: Show me how many, Minister. Don't talk
hypotheticals.
The Chair:
Mr Christopherson, you'd asked for at least a third and I've
actually gone longer than that. I don't know if there are any
government members. If there aren't-
Mr
Christopherson: Out of all 24 amendments, we've dealt
with two. I asked to deal with three. I haven't even had a chance
to deal with that number. It's frustrating because I want to
speak and you won't let me speak, and if you won't let me
speak-
Interruption.
The Chair:
Come to order or I'll clear the room. And while we do that, the
clock is still ticking and Mr Christopherson will get no further
chance to say anything.
The committee recessed
from 1619 to 1622.
The Chair:
I call the committee back to order and invite any further
comments. We've got a few minutes. You mentioned you had a third
amendment?
Mr
Christopherson: I did, Mr Chair, if you'll give me just
one second. I guess there are ministry staff who can answer a
question.
The Chair:
Yes, or the parliamentary assistant is here.
Mr
Christopherson: I believe your amendment 20 makes
reference to subsection 140(1), and you're adding paragraph 8.1,
where it now only goes to 8. It deals with this whole issue of
the voluntary nature of getting into agreements in 17(1). Under
"hours of work," some of the very issues we've been dealing with
this afternoon, you've now added-I wanted to know what the
implication of 8.1 is in plain language, please.
The Chair:
Could I invite ministry staff to come forward to the witness
table.
Mr John
Hill: Perhaps it would help if I began by explaining the
cross-references.
Subsection 17(2) is the
provision that allows the agreements to work in excess of the
presumptive limits, which are eight hours a day, or a regular
workday, if that's longer than eight hours, and the weekly limit
of 48 hours.
Clause 17(1)(a) is the
daily hour limit which, as I said, is eight hours per day, or if
a regular workday has been established of longer than eight
hours, whatever that regular workday is.
Subsection 17(3) is the
provision that allows an agreement to work hours in excess of
those limits to be revoked by the employee upon two weeks'
notice. What this provision says is that if you make an agreement
to work hours in excess of the daily limits-not the weekly limits
but the daily limits-and you make that agreement at the point of
hiring and it's approved by the director of employment standards,
then that agreement is irrevocable unless both parties-the
employee and the employer-agree that it may be resolved.
Mr
Christopherson: And that is related to agreements for
working 60 hours? Help me out a bit.
Mr Hill:
That's the agreement to work hours in excess of the daily limit,
which is eight hours or the regular workday, whichever, and not
the weekly limit.
Mr
Christopherson: So if you agree to work beyond eight
hours a day on a regular basis, then there is a permit that the
ministry issues-is that what you're saying to me?-and it can't be
revoked unless both the employer and employee agree.
Mr Hill:
Yes. For example, if I agree to work four 12-hour shifts a week,
and I make that agreement at the point at which I'm hired, and
that agreement is approved by the director of employment
standards, that agreement is irrevocable unless both parties say
it can be revoked.
Mr
Christopherson: Is that normal? Is that a change?
Mr Hill:
Under the existing legislation, the question of whether
agreements are revocable is simply not addressed. I don't think
there's any clear legal answer to the question of what happens if
I make an agreement to work a certain number of hours at the
point at which I'm hired and then later purport to say, "I'm
going to take that back. I don't want to work those hours any
more."
I don't think there's a
clear answer under the existing legislation as to what happens.
It says that you cannot work an employee more than eight per day
or 48 per week without the consent of the employee, but it
doesn't say what happens if consent has been given and the
employee later tries to take it back. Subsection 17(3) of the act
was an attempt to address the question of whether these
agreements can be revoked or not. It said, yes, you can make
these agreements but they are revocable upon two weeks' notice.
This new provision, paragraph 8.1, would allow the Lieutenant
Governor in Council, ie, the cabinet, the power to make a
regulation to create an exception to that in the case of
agreements to work hours in excess of the daily limits, where
it's done at the time of hire and the director of employment
standards has approved.
Mr
Christopherson: Only under those two circumstances?
Mr Hill:
That's right.
Mr
Christopherson: Not a subsequent agreement? If there
were a subsequent agreement, how would that differ?
Mr Hill:
If it's not an agreement that's made at the time of hire-if
originally the company had five eight-hour shifts per week and
they said, "We want to go to a four-day week with 12-hour
shifts," at some point after the time I'm hired, this regulation
wouldn't have any impact on that. If at some point after the
point of hiring the employer wants to change the configuration of
the workweek, and the employee agreed, the employee can withdraw
that agreement upon two weeks' notice. It won't affect that.
Mr
Christopherson: All right. The four 12s is something I
know they have at Dofasco and other major places. Firefighters
have things like that. So that's probably the nice, pristine
example of where you would use this.
What would happen to somebody who hired someone and
said, "I expect you to be available to work. Your regular workday
is eight hours a day, and once you sign this and start the job,
then we'll get a permit that allows that," assuming an employer
would even say that much. Is there not the potential here for
someone to inadvertently bind themselves to a longer workday that
they can't get out of unless the employer agrees, or have I got
it wrong?
Mr Hill:
Inadvertently? I think the agreement is going to have to say what
the upper limit on the daily hours would be.
Mr
Christopherson: Yes, but say it's seven or whatever
or-
Mr Hill:
There's still a 48-hour weekly limit that this doesn't impact
upon. So, could somebody do it inadvertently? I suppose if the
agreement that was put in front of the employee said, "OK, you
may be required to work up to 11 hours a day," or whatever, and
at that point the employee doesn't have a regular workday of 11
hours-it's eight hours-but the employer is putting this agreement
in front of the employee to work up to 11 hours a day, and the
employee agrees and signs it, yes, that would be irrevocable.
Would they be doing it inadvertently? I guess that is a
possibility, if they don't realize the significance of the fact
that the agreement is saying 11 hours, even though the
established workweek at that place is eight hours. It's
possible.
Mr
Christopherson: So we have created a potential for new
problems here that wouldn't have been there under existing
legislation.
Mr Hill:
What I said is premised on the fact that they did not realize the
significance of the agreement saying, "I may be required to work
up to 11 hours a day."
1630
Mr
Christopherson: One more quick question. I know I'm
probably on borrowed time, believe it or not.
Are you a lawyer?
Mr Hill:
Yes, I am.
Mr
Christopherson: In your professional opinion, are there
any changes in here that are more than just what one might
classify as housekeeping?
Mr Hill:
If you'll give me a moment, I'll review them very quickly and let
you know.
Mr
Christopherson: You're getting more time to review than
we did.
While that's going on, just
to take advantage of the time if I can, the cameras are gone. I
was going to read the Hansard at this stage. I've got to tell
you, though, somewhere down the line, this has got to stop. You
can't do this. You can't keep ramming through legislation and
having no review, no clause-by-clause at all. There's no review
here. I don't expect anybody to respond to this, but you know
there's no way to respond to the question of fairness or adequacy
of having all of us at least take a look at these things. There
just no justification on earth for doing this.
Mr Raminder Gill
(Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Mr Chair, if I may? I
think we've given the courtesy to the member. He doesn't have to
keep knocking us at every turn. It is unfair. He should be
appreciative of the opportunity each time that has been given to
him.
Mr
Christopherson: Should be appreciative?
The Chair:
We have something here we are awaiting. Have you got your
answer?
Mr Hill:
If no one minds, I will rely on a list prepared by our policy
branch which divides amendments between substantive and other
types of amendments rather than review each one myself. I can
explain from that list which are the ones they've identified as
substantive.
The motion for section 17
is different than what you see in the bill because it allows the
employer to establish a regular workday of more than eight
hours.
Mr
Christopherson: I guess I really can't ask questions. He
can give his answer and then we are on-
The Chair:
Might I ask how long you think your answer is going to be
here?
Mr Hill:
There are six amendments that have been classified as substantive
on this sheet.
Mr
Christopherson: I'll shut up if you'll let him answer
that.
The Chair:
I'll tell you what. Why don't you just cite which six they
are.
Mr Hill:
The motion for section 19: if an unforeseen situation occurs,
this is where public services have to be maintained. It allows,
in effect, an emergency exception to maintain public services,
and in that case exceed the hours-of-work limit. We've added at
the beginning that it is if something unforeseen occurs, to make
it clear that this is to deal with an emergent situation.
Subsection 22(2): this is
to provide for the grandparenting of existing averaging
agreements. It also deals with some administrative aspects such
as whether agreements can be renewed, whether they can be
revoked.
Sections 46 and 48: these
are virtually identical amendments. It requires an employee who
does not intend to return to work upon the conclusion of her
leave to give the employer four weeks' notice of that fact.
There's a parallel amendment for the parental leave
provision.
Section 18: there are two
aspects to this motion. The bill language talks about performing
"active duties." The motion would change that to performing
"work." We found there is a lot of confusion, more than we
anticipated, about what active duties are, as opposed to inactive
duties for a worker, so we've just talked about work. If there
are problems of what "work" means, that can be taken care of in
regulations because there is a power to define terms.
At the end of subsection
(3), this is the provision that requires that there be at least
eight hours between shifts. There are certain situations where it
might be advantageous to both parties for the employee to agree
to work a successive shift even though fewer than eight hours
have passed. In that case, the change in subsection (3) would
allow that to be waived in effect if the employee agrees.
The last one identified as
substantive-paragraph 8.1 I believe we've spoken about
already. The other motion which is really coupled with that is section
140. It is adding three new subsections, (8), (9) and (10). Let
me just refresh my memory here. This was the approval that the
director of employment standards could give where the employee at
the point of hire agrees to work more than eight hours per
day.
Subsection (8) would allow
the director to impose conditions in granting an approval and
also to rescind the approval if the director wishes at a later
date.
Subsection (9) is a
clarification provision which says that even though this
agreement has been made, you cannot work more than 10 hours per
day except in the emergency conditions which are identified in
section 19 of the bill.
Subsection (10), another
precaution: if under the agreement that the employee has signed
they are working both more than eight hours per day and 48 hours
per week, as we've indicated with paragraph 8.1, in certain
circumstances that agreement could be irrevocable insofar as the
daily hours are concerned. Subsection (10), though, makes it
clear that the part of the agreement that pertains to the weekly
hour limit is revocable in accordance with subsection 17(3).
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We appreciate that detailed answer.
With that, we've certainly
made allowance for any time lost for the demonstration.
Pursuant to an order of the
House, seeing that it is 4:30 of the clock, the committee must
move promptly into clause-by-clause, the actual votes. Every
question is deemed to be put. That means we don't even read the
motion. We will simply proceed on the basis of the numbers on the
upper right-hand corner of each page. I will put the questions in
order, first by section and then as we get to the various
amendments.
Shall section 1 carry?
Mr
Christopherson: Recorded vote.
The Chair:
A recorded vote has been requested.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 1 is carried.
Shall section 2 carry? All
those in favour? Opposed? Section 2 is carried.
Shall section 3 carry?
Mr
Christopherson: Recorded vote.
The Chair:
All those in favour?
Interjection.
The Chair:
We seem to have a difference of opinion, but I will defer to the
expertise of the clerks. In the case of a recorded vote, all
sections or amendments that have that request are moved to the
bottom. Then you can have a 20-minute recess to vote on that. If
it is your wish to do that-or are you indicating you're going to
be asking for a recorded vote to all sections and amendments?
Mr
Christopherson: Yes, they're all going to be recorded
vote requests.
1640
The Chair:
Then the committee will-I'd hate to say, "I told you so," to a
clerk. May I suggest to the committee members that we not take a
20-minute recess? Agreed? Thank you.
A recorded vote was
requested for section 3.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 3 is carried.
Shall section 4 carry?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 4 is carried.
All those in favour of
section 5?
Interjections.
The Chair:
I'm skipping one step of the process, anticipating what's the
likely answer.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 5 is carried.
All those in favour of
section 6?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 6 is carried.
All those who believe
section 7 should carry?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 7 is carried.
All those in favour of
section 8 carrying?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 8 is carried.
All those in favour of
section 9 carrying?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 9 is carried.
All those in favour of
section 10 carrying?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 10 is carried.
All those in favour of
section 11 carrying?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 11 is carried.
All those in favour of
section 12?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 12 is carried.
All those in favour of
section 13 carrying?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 13 is carried.
Section 14.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 14 is carried.
Section 15.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 15 is carried.
Section 16.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 16 is carried.
Amendment 1, the government
motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Shall section 17, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 17, as amended, is carried.
Amendment 2, government
motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Shall section 18, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair: Section 18, as amended,
is carried.
In section 19, we have
amendment 3, a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Shall section 19, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
I didn't know whether to take from that silence an acquiescence,
but I take it not.
Section 19, as amended, is
carried.
All those in favour of
section 20 carrying?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Actually, in deference to the clerk's voice, section 20 is
carried.
Section 21.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 21 is carried.
The fourth amendment, in
section 22, a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Shall section 22, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 22, as amended, is carried.
The fifth amendment is in
section 23, a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Shall section 23, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 23, as amended, is carried.
I will, in the interests of
greater clarity, for government motion number 6, break it down
and ask the question on each section, up to and including the new
section 29.1. So you will be voting, in effect, for subsections
of the motion you see on page 6.
All those in favour of the
amendment to section 24?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
The amendment to section 24 is carried.
The amendment to section
25: all those in favour? Oh, I beg your pardon. We will simply
consider that the only amendment within section 24.
Shall section 24, as
amended, carry? I didn't hear a no, so it carries.
Interjection.
The Chair:
No, I'm asking whether that was acquiescence.
Mr
Christopherson: No.
The Chair:
OK, that's fine. A recorded vote on each section.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That section is carried, as amended.
The amendment to section
25, a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Section 25, as amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 25, as amended, is carried.
The amendment from page 6,
a government motion amending section 26.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Section 26, as amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 26, as amended, is carried.
The amendment to section
27, government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Section 27, as amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 27, as amended, is carried.
The amendment to section
28, government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Section 28, as amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That section is carried.
The amendment to section
29, government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Section 29, as amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That section is carried, as amended.
The new section 29.1,
government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Section 29.1, as
amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That section is carried.
Section 30.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That section is carried.
Section 31.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That section is carried.
Section 32.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 32 is carried.
Section 33.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Levac.
The Chair:
That section is carried.
Section 34.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 34 is carried.
Section 35.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 35 is carried.
Section 36.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 36 is carried.
The next amendment is to
section 37; it's government motion number 7.
1650
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Section 37, as amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 37, as amended, is carried.
Section 38.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 38 is carried.
Section 39.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 39 is carried.
Section 40.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 40 is carried.
Section 41.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 41 is carried.
Section 42: All those in
favour?
Clerk of the
Committee (Ms Anne Stokes): Mrs Munro, Mr Barrett, Mr
Chudleigh, Mr Gill.
The Chair:
Opposed?
Interjection.
The Chair:
I beg your pardon. So you're in favour?
Interjection.
The Chair:
OK. My apologies. We're still on "all those in favour."
Clerk of the
Committee: Mr Agostino, Mr Levac, Mr Christopherson.
The Chair:
Section 42 is carried.
Section 43.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 43 is carried.
Section 44.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 44 is carried.
Section 45.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 45 is carried.
The next motion is found at
page 8, a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Section 46, as amended: all
those in favour?
Clerk of the
Committee: Mrs Munro, Mr Barrett, Mr Chudleigh, Mr
Gill.
The Chair:
Opposed?
Interjection.
The Chair:
Let me do that again. There seems to be some doubt around the
table. All those in favour of section 46, as amended?
The Chair:
Thank you. The next amendment you'll find at page 10. It's a
government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Section 55, as amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 55, as amended, is carried.
Section 56.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 56 is carried.
Section 57.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 57 is carried.
The next amendment you'll
find on page 11. It's a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Section 58, as amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 58, as amended, is carried.
Section 59.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 59 is carried.
Section 60.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 60 is carried.
Section 61.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 61 is carried.
Section 62.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 62 is carried.
Section 63.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 63 is carried.
Section 64.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 64 is carried.
Section 65.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 65 is carried.
Section 66.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 66 is carried.
Section 67.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 67 is carried.
Section 68.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 68 is carried.
Section 69.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 69 is carried.
Section 70.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 70 is carried.
Section 71.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 71 is carried.
Section 72.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 72 is carried.
The next amendment you'll
find on page 12. It's the NDP motion.
AYES
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
NAYS
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
The Chair:
That amendment fails.
Section 73.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 73 is carried.
Section 74.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 74 is carried.
Section 75.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 75 is carried.
Section 76.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 76 is carried.
Section 77.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 77 is carried.
Section 78.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 78 is carried.
Section 79.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 79 is carried.
In deference to the clerk's
voice, it would be acceptable to have a recorded vote for a
number of sections together, if that meets with your approval.
Would that be fine?
Looking forward to where
the next amendment is-section 107-the question would be on
sections 80 through 106.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Sections 80 through 106 are carried.
Section 107 includes an
amendment. You'll find it on page 13. It's a government
motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Section 107, as
amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 107, as amended, is carried.
Section 108.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair: Section 108 is
carried.
Section 109.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
1700
The Chair:
Section 109 is carried.
Section 110.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 110 is carried.
The next amendment you'll
find at page 14. It's a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Section 111, as
amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 111, as amended, is carried.
Section 112.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 112 is carried.
Section 113.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 113 is carried.
Section 114.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 114 is carried.
The next amendment is on
page 15, a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Section 115, as
amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 115, as amended, is carried.
The next amendment you'll
find on page 16, a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment is carried.
Section 116, as
amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 116, as amended, is carried.
Section 117.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 117 is carried.
Section 118.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 118 is carried.
The next amendment is found
on page 17. It's a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Section 119, as
amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 119, as amended, is carried.
Sections 120 through
139.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Sections 120 through 139 are carried.
The next amendment you'll
find on page 18. It's a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
The next amendment is on
page 19, another government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Amendment 20, a government
motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Amendment 21, a government
motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Amendment 22, a government
motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Section 140, as
amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 140, as amended, is carried.
The next amendment is on
page 23, a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair: That amendment
carries.
Section 141, as
amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 141, as amended, is carried.
Section 142.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 142 is carried.
The final amendment you'll
find on page 24. It's a government motion.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
That amendment carries.
Section 143, as
amended.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 143, as amended, is carried.
Section 144.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 144 is carried.
Section 145.
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Section 145 is carried.
Shall the title of the bill
carry?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
The title of the bill is carried.
Shall Bill 147, as amended,
carry?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The Chair:
Bill 147, as amended, is carried.
Shall I report the bill, as
amended, to the House?
AYES
Barrett, Chudleigh, Gill,
Munro.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Levac.
The
Chair: I will report the bill, as amended, to the
House.
Thank you to the
committee members. I appreciate your co-operation through this
process and look forward to third reading debate.
The committee stands
adjourned until the call of the Chair.
