Committee Transcript 2014-Nov-03 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Committee Transcript 2014-Nov-03 (PDF)

G003 - Mon 3 Nov 2014 / Lun 3 nov 2014

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES GOUVERNEMENTALES

Monday 3 November 2014 Lundi 3 novembre 2014

Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 Loi de 2014 sur l’amélioration du lieu de travail au service d’une économie plus forte

The committee met at 1404 in committee room 2.

Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 Loi de 2014 sur l’amélioration du lieu de travail au service d’une économie plus forte

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 18, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour / Projet de loi 18, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et la main-d’oeuvre.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I’d like to call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, everyone. I’d like to welcome all the members of the committee to the Standing Committee on General Government. This afternoon we’re going to be doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 18, which is An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour, pursuant to the order of the House dated October 28, 2014.

I’d just like to share with you a section of the order: “That at 4 p.m. on Monday, November 3, 2014, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The committee shall be authorized to meet beyond the normal hour of adjournment until completion of clause-by-clause consideration. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed, pursuant to standing order 129(a)....”

What this means is, we will use the normal process until 4 p.m., and at 4 p.m. there will be no further discussion. We will just be voting on the amendments.

Having said that, we will get right down to work.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the bill: There are no amendments. Shall sections 1, 2 and 3 carry?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I have a few comments on that—no.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Any questions or comments?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. Sorry. Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: First of all, I want to start off by stating very clearly our disappointment with this time allocation motion. I think every member of the Liberal government understands that both the third party and the official opposition were supportive of Bill 18. Even though we had some concerns with Bill 18, we said we’ll support it; we’ll get it to committee; we’ll take some time to listen to people, hear what their concerns are and hopefully improve the bill and address some of those concerns that have been expressed.

No sooner did we see that that support was coming, a time allocation motion was put in preventing any further debate in the House and ramrodding the public delegations which happened last Thursday. Businesses, industry groups and individuals had very limited notice that the committee was going to be accepting public delegations and very little time to respond. Those actions are absolutely despicable, in my view.

The purpose of debate—

Mr. Mike Colle: Point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Mr. Colle on a point of order.

Mr. Mike Colle: I think the standing orders indicate that at this point in time members should be restricting their comments to the clauses of the bill before this committee and not beyond that. So the comments should be focused and directed on schedule 1 or schedule 2 and not on general comments.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): According to procedure, Mr. Hillier does have up to 20 minutes to speak, at which time, if he’s continuing to speak, I would ask if there are any other members who would be interested in speaking. If not, then Mr. Hillier is entitled to continue speaking. However, I would remind you that we’re dealing with section 1 at this point.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes, absolutely.

Running roughshod over the parliamentary process at the same time the Liberal government is touting and promoting openness, transparency and accountability is nothing but duplicitous. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t be promoting openness, transparency and accountability, and then on the very first bill that has support from the opposition, you bring in time allocation.

I know there are a number of members of this committee who are here for their first time in committee. They’re newly elected. The job of all of us is to represent our constituents, to bring voice to their concerns. That’s what debate is for. When you prevent debate, you actually prevent us from doing our job. When we prevent or obstruct or limit the public’s ability to come to this committee and bring their concerns directly to us all, you are obstructing democracy. Clear?

1410

I get it. I can understand, if you’re at the end of the session and you want to get a bill through, that you might circumvent the process somewhat, but at the very start of the session you’re circumventing the process. The bills that you are bringing forward, you are time-allocating. You’re preventing all of us from doing our job effectively. You’re preventing yourselves from doing your jobs effectively.

I can’t stress this enough to all members of the committee: Parliament is not here just as some esoteric debating society. Our debates are meant to safeguard the public’s interest in the development of public policy and laws. That’s the purpose. We’re here to safeguard the public’s interest. If there’s no debate, there are no safeguards.

We’ve seen this. You’ll see this; hopefully, you’ll be here for many, many years and many sessions and terms. You will see bills that were ramrodded and pushed through government, only to find out that the unintended consequences that were not looked upon and not discerned and not deliberated on during the initial passage of the bill come and bear that negative fruit on people, and those people are our constituents. They are the ones who get hurt when we don’t do our job here. They are the ones who face the consequences, not you or I, not anybody who is sitting around this table. It’s our constituents who then call us up and want to come for a meeting to explain why they’re feeling injured by a public policy. I don’t want to see any more people coming into my constituency office feeling unduly harmed by public policy.

In this bill, we have five very distinct public policies, five different schedules. They’re wrapped up in one bill. I know that in my 30-minute leadoff speech I only spoke to one, to the minimum wage aspect of it. There was not enough time to get into the other four schedules.

I would challenge anybody here at this committee: Do you actually know what we’re altering with this public policy, with this Bill 18? We heard from those few people who did get in here last Thursday about the WSIB, the joint and several liability. We heard about the temporary agencies. We heard about a number of things that they view will have very serious unintended consequences.

Not only did we prevent debate in the House; now you’ve gone to time allocation in committee, where these things, these items of importance, cannot be adequately ventilated or discussed or deliberated or amended in a thoughtful way. I would ask everybody in this committee room today: Really, if you want to do your job well, there must be a means and a mechanism to reset the clock here and allow for thoughtful, deliberate discussions and make sure that we do not harm and injure our constituents because of a rush to get a bill passed.

I’ll leave that for others for discussion.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much, Mr. Hillier. Mr. Yurek?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Thank you very much, Chair. I’d like to commend Randy here for bringing forth his thoughts on what is occurring in our Legislature today. Randy does bring to this Legislature quite a bit of in-depth knowledge on how the people are represented quite well at the Legislature and the fact that the bills that we go forward with should and do represent not only the stakeholders but also the individual people of the province, and the fact that, unfortunately, time allocation has been brought forth in the Legislature and also at committee. There’s a great deal of inconsistency that can occur with the legislation.

I brought forward one bit of information that I’d like to put on the record for this bill, going forward. It’s from the International Debate Education Association. It’s just a couple of paragraphs here.

“From its very beginnings, debate has been inextricably intertwined with the concept of open society. In ancient Athens, citizens gathered in forums to discuss and debate the most pressing issues of the day before casting their votes. Such debates were an integral part of a new form of government Athens was to bequeath to the world: democracy.

“Unlike totalitarian and other undemocratic regimes where a limited set of ideas are posed as absolute truths, democratic societies depend upon the free and open exchange of ideas. Indeed, it may be said that true democracy cannot exist without debate. For democracy to function, the values that debate encourages—reason, tolerance, the careful weighing of evidence, etc.—must be cherished and nurtured. But even within societies that restrict open discussion, debate can teach young people that no one person or government possesses the ultimate truth.”

Chair, I think this speaks very highly of the expectation of the people who sent us here to represent them at the Legislature to bring forth their own opinions and thoughts at debate. I, unfortunately, was not allowed or did not have the time to speak in the Legislature on this bill. Therefore, the voice of the constituents I represent through Elgin–Middlesex–London was not heard on the Legislature floor due to this bill.

It’s quite unfortunate that we’ve actually headed in this direction with, technically, the first bill to come to committee under this government of Premier Wynne, when her throne speech spoke about how open and transparent this government will be, going forward. However, when they get the opportunity to bring a bill that all parties do support—and when you look at a bill which all parties support, I think you can find ways to fix the bill or amend the bill so that it fairly represents all throughout society, as opposed to having some parties go against a bill which, at the end of the day, usually tends not to be a positive bill when enacted into law. However, when you get the situation where all three parties are in support of a bill, the fine-tuning of the bill through debate can really bring out a positive effect not only for the legislation but also for the people of Ontario.

I find it interesting that when we were in a minority government, time allocation was rarely used because the government really didn’t have that as their option to forward, but now that we’ve hit the majority government, they feel like they don’t have to listen to the opposition anymore. That’s the message that’s resonating to me and to my constituents when they bring forth their time allocation motions effectively in the first instance back in this fall session.

The concern, going forward, is that this is the first two months of this 41st Parliament being in session and we’re already at time allocation motions. In effect, debate is being shut down by this government and the work of the committees is being limited. I’m hoping that this government is able to amend their ways and bring forth debate back into the Legislature. The people of Ontario did elect them as the governing party of the province. However, they did not elect them to be the governing dictatorship of the Legislature of Ontario.

We could make it right today. Perhaps the government could come forth with a motion to return this bill back to the Legislature to resume second reading. I think that would be an amazing circumstance to go forward. But as Mr. Hillier raised earlier, when you ramrod a bill through the Legislature, you end up with unintended consequences.

The big debate that’s going on—there’s another bill trying to fix it—is the auto insurance package. That bill was hastily put through and reforms were initiated in 2010. However, the unintended consequences were that prices shot through—

Mr. Mike Colle: A point of order.

1420

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you. A point of order: Mr. Colle.

Mr. Mike Colle: I think we’re supposed to be debating schedule 1. I’ve heard no references to it whatsoever by two speakers. I think the Chair should talk to the Clerk and see whether they are abiding by the rules of this House, by not talking to the bill before us and talking in generalities that have nothing to do with schedules 1, 2 or 3.

Mr. Randy Hillier: We’re talking specifically to the bill.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you, Mr. Colle. I’ll just read section 80 of the standing orders: “When a bill is considered in a committee, the Chair shall inquire whether any comments, questions or amendments are to be offered and to which sections and will call only such sections. If no sections are so designated, the bill shall be reported as a whole.” I believe the members of the official opposition are speaking to the bill as a whole. I did mention sections 1, 2 and 3 previously when we first commenced, but I did not allow for that opportunity for them to speak to the bill as a whole. As such, this is what’s happening at this time.

Thank you for the point of order, but I will—

Mr. Mike Colle: They’re speaking to the insurance bill and quoting Athenian democracy.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Right.

Mr. Mike Colle: I don’t see that in this bill.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I would remind the members to speak to the bill before us. Thank you.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Sure, Mr. Speaker, and thanks, Mr. Colle, for pointing that out. In essence, this bill is being ramrodded through the Legislature, and that’s the importance of my discussion earlier of why limiting the debate in the Legislature—I have not yet been able to fully debate on this bill with regard to perhaps temporary workers, which is a huge issue within my riding. I feel that the amendments being made to the temporary workers section of this bill are not even addressing a single concern, going forward, of people in my riding.

Unfortunately, because this government has shut down debate through their time allocation motion, has decided to shut down the proper functioning of this committee through its time allocation motion, certain parts of this bill, namely temporary agencies, at this point will not be fully discussed—to hear my views, to hear the reasoning behind why my constituents feel the way they do and the help that they do need to get. Unfortunately, because of the time allocation motion, which is in essence shutting down democracy—which is why I referenced the importance of democracy in my initial two paragraphs that I brought forward: the fact that it encourages reason, tolerance and careful weighing of the evidence; it encourages healthy debate; it encourages ideas brought forth that perhaps this government would listen to and perhaps would take forward into their own amendments or into our amendments to ensure that debate is heard.

However, when I go back home in my riding and I’m talking around at the coffee shops on the weekend, or at the various events that we do have, the question arises, “With regard to Bill 18, what did you say about it? What were your thoughts on Bill 18?” Unfortunately, I have to discuss, “This government has shut down debate on Bill 18. They’ve only limited a handful of people to be allowed to talk.” The problem is that when a constituent comes to me and goes, “Where’s my voice in this? Where’s the voice for the people of Elgin–Middlesex–London?”—it’s a healthy section of southwestern Ontario. It’s a section that has been immensely devastated by policies that this government has brought forth hastily into the marketplace. We’ve lost over 6,000 manufacturing jobs in our riding. Out of 35,000 people, 6,000 of those people now have to report to temporary work agencies in order to find employment, if any at all is in the area. There are concerns with regard to the temp agencies that, because of the blockade of debate in this Legislature, because of the allocation motion that’s affecting this committee to fully function at its peak performance, the voices of those 6,000-plus people, plus their family members, who are out of jobs because of various policies enacted by this government which have devastated the manufacturing sector throughout the province, because they have come forward with these policies—these voices cannot be heard.

My concern is that more policy is going to be hastily shuffled through the Legislature, brushed through committee, and, at the end of the day, more devastation may occur to my riding because of this. So that’s why I’m speaking out against this: The voices of the people in my riding aren’t being heard. It has been taken away from me, which is totally against the reasonings of democracy in the beginning of time.

If you give me some leeway, I can definitely go through democracy and the reasonings behind it.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): No, I think we should stick with the bill at hand, please.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Well, I will make one point, though. There’s a book out there called Silencing Dissent. “The health of a democracy relies on many different things: limited government; strong civil society; the independence of autonomous institutions; the encouragement of dissident opinion, wide-ranging debate.”

This government is shutting down wide-ranging debate. In fact, it is not acting in a democratic process at all. Unfortunately, they aren’t listening to the concerns of the majority of the province of Ontario. If you look at it by area of the people living out there, they aren’t following through on the fact of allowing their voices to be heard. Coming from rural Ontario as you do, Chair—those voices want to be heard as much as the people in the urban areas of the province. The continuation to limit debate in bills like this, which deals with temporary agencies, minimum wage etc., without hearing the debate of the people of the province, is a vital concern of people not only here but, at the end of day, of the people through Toronto itself.

It was my hope, when the new government was elected—I, of course, expected a PC majority. That was my hope, but at the end of that day, that didn’t happen. It’s my hope, going forward as a member of the loyal opposition, that we are allowed to freely debate, bring forth ideas, critique the government, offer solutions other than the government’s—so that the people of Ontario can hear both sides—and, in the essence of working together, at the end of the day, come together to create legislation that is beneficial not only to one sector of the population but to the population as a whole.

I’ve brought forth some of my ideas. I would hope the government does go forth and amend their ways with regard to how they’re treating not only Bill 18 but Bill 15, which I imagine will be in this committee on Wednesday—I can talk about insurance non-stop.

However, there are issues here that they could have talked about. This bill talks about workplace safety and insurance. WSIB is a mess. Probably any member here, and especially the new members here, will learn that one of the top problems going through your offices, aside from the Family Responsibility Office, FRO, which is a whole new ball of wax—I can’t talk about it too much; it’s not in this bill. However, the WSIB will be one of your major concerns coming through your office: the fact of how broken the system really is, and the fact that they’re scrambling.

Mr. Natyshak here—I’ve heard his name come up through constituents of mine saying that he has got a strong voice with WSIB. I’m probably going to tap him for some resources. He seems to be able to slay the WSIB dragon, so to speak.

That type of problem is not addressed in this bill. I would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate in the Legislature on how we could fix WSIB or improve the situations going forward. However, it’s not happening in this bill and, unfortunately, the government is not hearing the changes, on the legislative floor or through the committee process, of how we could fix the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

I’m going to have to wait for another government bill, if they so choose, to discuss the WSIB, but it’s another lengthy time—one or two years down the road—before this government may bring out a bill. It’s one or two more years of people coming in my office continually with problems with WSIB.

I’ve got a poor guy in my office who, through a workplace accident, ended up in a wheelchair. The government sent him a letter saying, “We’re going to cover this forever, in perpetuity. We’ll fix your wheelchair whenever it’s broken.” Well, eight years down the road, his wheelchair is broken and he gets a letter: “No, we’re not giving you a new wheelchair. No, we’re not going to fix the wheelchair.” What does the guy do? What does the guy do? I’ve sent a letter to the minister to discuss it, and he supports what the workers’ compensation board has decided. I think that’s reprehensible.

Where does Bill 18 work to fix those problems at the WSIB where people who, with valid claims, are being shut out? It’s not in Bill 18. I would have loved to have talked about that in a longer dissertation to the Legislature. However, it’s not going to be happening.

1430

Speaker, I appreciate you allowing me to have a few minutes here to speak. My colleague Randy has done a tremendous opening here, hitting the nail on the head with regard to democracy. I would invite the newer members of the Legislature to take the time and meet with Mr. Hillier and discuss where he comes from with regard to democracy and how the Legislature should work. It’s a breath of fresh air to hear his thoughts and opinions on how the people can again be represented truly by their representatives and not be bogged down either by party politics or by—committee members are really just given this pack and told, “Do this.” Giving you that voice back and having a discussion—because changes to the Legislature and how MPPs operate are going to have to come from all three parties, not one party leading the charge. Thank you very much, Speaker.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you. Any other discussion? Mr. Colle.

Mr. Mike Colle: Yes. In terms of Bill 18, there are some very significant changes in schedules 1, 2 and 3. As you know, Mr. Chair, this deals with protecting vulnerable workers. This protection of vulnerable workers, especially foreign nationals—up until 2009, there was really no protection under Ontario labour laws for protecting foreign nationals who worked here in Ontario.

I have thousands of caregivers who work in my constituency. They usually work as caregivers to protect our elderly. In some cases, these caregivers have put their life savings on the line to come to Ontario to work. Their extended family back home have put together their life savings. They come here to Ontario to work as a result of that arrangement to be a live-in caregiver under federal legislation.

When they came here to work, basically they were non-persons. There was no protection whatsoever. I remember running into one of my constituents who had been working as a caregiver and said that she was working seven days a week as a caregiver, not only taking care of an elderly person in the household but also cooking and cleaning. She finally left that home situation because the person who had brought her here under the foreign caregivers program wouldn’t let her go to Sunday mass. She couldn’t go for two hours to go to church. She was not allowed to complain to anyone because there was no protection, federally or provincially, for these foreign caregivers. Working seven days a week in a household because they were not Canadian citizens, because they were under this federal program—there were no protections offered.

This bill is an attempt to extend the acknowledgement that these workers here in Ontario, whether they be migrant workers or caregivers, have protection under Ontario’s labour law. That is a significant change in legislation. It came about because of all the abuses that were made public back in 2008 and 2009. You’ll see that there were repeated examples of people, when they came as a caregiver, whose passports and bank books were confiscated, usually by the agent who brought him or her here. Their passport was in the hands of the agent who was the recruiter and also their bank book was even there. In fact, many of these caregivers, for the first few years, really worked for the agent. They couldn’t send any money back home because they were abused by the recruiters who took advantage of them.

I know that when we were here last day, some people mentioned about how we can regulate the foreign recruiters as well as the domestic recruiters to come under Ontario laws. It is a very complex thing. In fact, the federal government has even proposed a change in legislation, I think just on Friday, to further strengthen some protections for caregivers. It’s a very important, day-to-day, bread-and-butter issue for thousands of workers in Ontario who are asking for protection. They have asked for this protection going back—again, we’re talking about four or five years of this kind of effort to increase protection. That’s what this bill is all about. It’s listening to people, real people, with a lack of protection in their—all they were trying to do was make a living. That’s all. They said, “We want to work.” But they wanted to work under some kind of normalcy in terms of labour laws. This did not exist.

Now it does exist, and this is a further attempt to protect these caregivers and to protect the foreign nationals, those 130,000 migrant workers who work in Ontario with basically no protections. This bill begins to give them some protection. These are the people who work alongside our hard-working farmers to bring in our crops, to plant our crops. These 130,000 men and women who come to Ontario every year to work asked for some basic protection under Ontario law. This gives them some basic levels of protection—probably not enough. We could probably do more. I wish we would do more.

But this is the nuts and bolts of this Bill 18. It’s about real people, real problems that it tries to adjust. It’s critical that this bill go forward because it is not something that has just come up with this Parliament. This was a holdover from the last Parliament, where this was debated and introduced because these abuses were brought to light, just as the whole provision about minimum wage. There has been a huge debate about minimum wage. We know the official opposition did not believe in increasing the minimum wage. They said, “It’s all right. Leave it where it is. You’re going to ruin the economy by paying people $11 an hour.”

Mr. Randy Hillier: A point of order: We did vote in favour of this bill. Let’s keep the facts correct.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. Thank you for the point of order.

Mr. Colle.

Mr. Mike Colle: Anyway, the party opposite was not interested in advocating for a higher minimum wage. At least in this legislation, it is now indexed to the level of inflation. It’s a very reasonable approach. It’s not, certainly, as much as some of us would have liked to have the minimum wage go to—because it was a big debate that increasing the minimum wage was going to ruin the Ontario economy. As we know, that has not been the case in other jurisdictions where you increased the minimum wage, because the fact is that for a person who does make that minimum wage, every cent that they make in an increase, they would probably spend in the economy. So these are people who, with that extra dollar an hour, are going out there and buying more shoes, more clothes, more food. They’re not putting it in offshore banks. That’s why this bill deals with that important issue, especially schedule 2, about increasing the minimum wage and some protections for minimum wage jobs.

It is not fair that someone—well, we had a deputant here who said he was working on an assembly line. The guy on the assembly line with him was making $30 an hour and he was making $10 an hour doing the same work. So you mean to tell me that increasing that minimum wage another dollar or two would not be fair to that person working on the assembly line, where they can afford to pay someone else $30 and the person on the assembly line only a minimum wage?

So this bill is critically important to all the hundreds of thousands of people in Ontario who work for minimum wage. They work in every community: small-town, rural Ontario, urban Ontario. These are people who work long hours. The majority of them love to work because they want a job so they can pay their rent, pay for food on the table. This at least gives them a hope of a better wage so when they’re working those long hours, they are not part of the working poor. It shouldn’t be a point where a person who is working extremely hard, long hours, sometimes in difficult situations, not getting respect, is basically below the poverty line. That is not fair in Ontario. When other people are making huge wages, whether it be on Bay Street, whether it be in other employment situations, we can at least try to give them a reasonable wage. So this Bill 18 attempts to give people a reasonable minimum wage.

1440

Also, we talked about temporary help agencies in schedule 2. These temporary agencies basically had no control. It was the Wild West: Just hire people, make them work in any conditions, pay them what you want, and take kickbacks from them. They were simply the people who were working for temporary agencies. You can see them on Main Street, Toronto, every day. They pick up people in trucks and vans, take them to do everything from worm picking—they take them to work in factories. They take them to work digging ditches. Temporary agencies were basically totally outside the purview of this Ontario government.

As MPPs, hopefully, we’ve heard from these people who work for temporary agencies, were caregivers, migrant workers, hundreds of thousands of workers helping to build this economy—and then we look around and say, “They don’t come under Ontario labour law. You can do with them what you want.” That’s what the situation was before 2009: essentially no protections. We couldn’t even find out from the federal government where and how many migrant workers were in this province. They wouldn’t tell us, yet they’re all working in Ontario. Finally, I think we now have an idea. They gave us, I guess, a disc with data that says that there are about 130,000.

How many are working in your constituency, Mr. Chairman? Do you know how many and what the conditions are that they work under? Up until this bill, no one knew the number, the conditions, or, if they got hurt on the job, what happened to them. Most of them were afraid to come forward. If you talk to the caregivers, talk to people who work for temporary agencies, a lot of them have English as a second language. They live from day to day. Therefore, many of them were unable to come forward and speak out, but we’ve heard them. They’ve been coming to us—as an MPP, I’ve heard them, again going back five, six years, and that’s why I myself put forward a private member’s bill called Bill 160 where I tried to bring in legislation, the caregivers workplace protection act, that was finally adopted by the government and they did their own version of it, which I was happy to see. So that’s what I did as an MPP.

That’s why I’m so glad that this legislation is further strengthened to protect these men and women who clean the diapers of our elderly; men and women who pick our fruit and plant our crops; these men and women who work in factories at all kinds of hours, all kinds of conditions. They’re nameless; they’re voiceless. You saw that some of them did come. They’re starting to come forward.

So this bill is a reaction to that reality that we, as a province, had to do something. We had to step up to the plate to protect people. That’s why we cannot delay and obfuscate about this bill on whether we need a minimum wage increase. I think people spoke loudly and clearly during the last election that they wanted more protection for workers. They didn’t want to see 100,000 people thrown out on the streets; they wanted workers working and protected. That was a great exercise in democracy, where they said no to the firing of 100,000 people and they said yes to a higher minimum wage.

I know that there were all kinds of personal support workers who came out in droves during the election and said, “We support fairer wages for personal support workers.” Those were the issues where democracy really spoke out during the last election—about this. It was very good to see, for a change, where these issues were part of the election. These were real, bread-and-butter, working men and women who asked for fairness. They didn’t ask for any free ride. They said, “We want to work. We’ll work hard, but we want Ontario laws to be improved and strengthened.”

Do schedules 1, 2 or 3 answer all the issues, all the vulnerabilities? They don’t, but at least it’s another step in that direction to realizing that all workers—whether you work on Bay Street, whether you work in a nursing home or whether you work in someone’s home as a caregiver, you deserve protection under Ontario law. That’s the premise of this bill. That’s why I’m more than anxious to support this bill and see it go forward so that these people, who’ve been waiting in silence for decades, where they received no protection and no acknowledgement of the issues that they face as workers, finally have at least some recognition under Bill 18.

Do we have more to do? I’m sure my colleagues will agree, certainly on this side, and my colleague from Essex will agree that we have to do a heck of a lot more. There is more to be done. This is what we are faced with here today: the nuts and bolts of improving the employment standards protections for people who are doing our work and just ask for a fair shot. That’s what Bill 18 moves towards. By passing this bill, getting it into law, we’ll protect a lot of people who deserve to be protected and have every right to be protected since they work in all of our communities and do a heck of a lot of work that other people wouldn’t do. Just because they may not be Canadian citizens, just because they may be under a caregiver program, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have protection under Ontario law.

That is why I support this bill. I hope my colleagues will support this bill going forward so we can finally put into action what we’ve been saying we should be doing: strengthening legislation to protect people in a better way in this province. They richly deserve us giving them more protections for the work they have done for our province.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much, Mr. Colle.

I would just like to share with you some of the Chair’s responsibilities when it comes to a bill that’s before a committee with multiple amendments. Standing order 77(b): “The Chair of a committee, including the Chair of the Committee of the Whole House, may take such reasonable steps as he or she considers necessary to facilitate the committee’s consideration and disposition of multiple amendments.”

I would like to thank the members who have spoken and shared their opinions, number one, on how the bill got here. I thank Mr. Colle for speaking directly to some of the components of the bill, but I’m going to exercise my authority now as Chair in my responsibilities, and we will be moving to amendments at this particular point.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, I’d like to move a motion.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): We’re on section 1. Is it a motion with regard to section 1?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): There have been no amendments put forward with regard to section 1.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to move a motion about section 1.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: That section 1 be separated from the bill and recommitted to the House for second reading.

Mr. Mike Colle: Point of order: That’s out of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Randy Hillier: What’s the standing order, Mike?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Mr. Hillier, according to the order from the House, “the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the Clerk of the Committee shall be 1 p.m. on Friday, October 31, 2014.”

So it’s out of order. Your motion to remove section 1 and return it to the House is out of order. We’ll be dealing with section 1—

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’ll seek a point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Point of order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I seek unanimous consent from this committee that the bill be separated into five schedules and recommitted to the House for second reading.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): No. This is an order from the House, so that would be out of order as well.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I can seek unanimous consent.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I don’t believe so.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): A committee does not have the authority to overrule an order from the House. The order from the House is quite clear that we have to move directly into what is the process that has—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Which standing order says that I can’t seek unanimous consent?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I’m going to rule that we’re going to follow the order of the House. We’re going to deal with the bill as per the order from the House of October 28, 2014, and we’re going to—

Mr. Randy Hillier: You are suggesting that in this committee, there cannot be any motions entertained or unanimous consents?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): You’ve been here a long time, so I’m just trying to think—

Mr. Randy Hillier: I would like to see the standing order that says that no unanimous consents or motions can be entertained.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): You’ll have to give me a second.

In essence, Mr. Hillier, there is a clear mandate for the committee, as per the order of the House, and as such there’s no provision in that order from the House to deal with any motions outside the scope of what we are required to do here as a committee in following the order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’ve read through the motion. I see nothing in the motion that prevents a unanimous consent from being sought. I grant you that the amendments were to be tabled by 1 o’clock last Friday. Nowhere do I see that motions can’t be entertained after 1 o’clock last Friday—amendments. I’d like to see if you can clarify where in that time allocation motion it says that no further motions can be entertained by the committee. I would be pleased to see that.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion which you are proposing to table is in contradiction to the order from the House.

Mr. Randy Hillier: But my question was: No motions?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I’m going to call the motion, that particular motion, out of order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Okay, but other motions can be—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I will judge as they come forward.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I just wanted clarification on that. I just lost my page here.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): We’re here to deal specifically with the bill, so I will not be entertaining any other motions than those pursuant to the specific sections that we’re supposed to deal with and the mandate from the order of the House. Thank you very much, Mr. Hillier.

We’re going to move to section 1; I’ll do it as separate sections.

There are no amendments to section 1. Shall section 1 carry?

Interjections.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, I call for a recorded vote.

Mr. Mike Colle: It has already been voted on.

Mr. Randy Hillier: And I would also call for a 20-minute recess.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): A 20-minute recess is in order, and when we return we will have a recorded vote.

Mr. Mike Colle: We already had it and it carried. He should have asked for the recorded vote before.

Mr. Randy Hillier: A 20-minute recess, Mike.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Twenty-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1453 to 1513.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay, so I’ll call the meeting back to order after the 20-minute break.

We are on section 1, and there has been a request for a recorded vote, so I will pass it over to the Clerk.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Those in favour? Those opposed? The motion is defeated.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Sorry. She’s got to go through the process. So we’re on section 1.

Mr. Mike Colle: Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): There has been a request—I had asked, should it carry? There was a request for a recorded vote. I’m going to honour that.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: So we’re voting on, should it carry?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Carry: Those in favour?

Mr. Mike Colle: It’s recorded, though, isn’t it?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): It’s recorded.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Can you let us know who the motion is from prior to—identify where the motion comes from?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay, that would—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Repeat the motion and where the motion comes from.

Interjections.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: This is section 1. These are not amendments.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): These are not amendments; these are sections.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: But you will do that when we get to amendments?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Section 1, yes.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Very good.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Can you just clarify exactly what we’re voting on once again?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I had asked for section 1 to carry. There was a request for a recorded vote, so I’m asking: Those in favour of section 1 carrying?

Ayes

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Those opposed?

The motion is carried.

Shall section 2 carry?

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Sorry; section 1 is carried.

I had asked, “Shall section 2 carry?” Mr. Hillier?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I have some comments on section 2.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I just also wanted to bring to the Chair’s attention that standing order 131 speaks about when members of the committee make comment and other members of the committee may express dissent with that comment. In the previous discussion, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence made some points that I believe need to be rebutted.

I’d just like to say, first off, that it’s nice to see the member from Eglinton–Lawrence have something to say on this bill. I want to bring it to all members of the committee that schedule 1—as the member from Eglinton–Lawrence mentioned, that bill originally came in in 2009, in the foreign live-in caregivers act. It went through a time allocation process as well, and we see it once again. This bill that was only enacted in 2010 now has to be modified and amended because it was hastily rushed through the House.

I would like to make a point here: The other two sections of this bill that are being amended, on the WSIB and the Occupational Health and Safety Act—there were two reports tabled with this Legislature: the Dean report and the Harry Arthurs report on WSIB reforms. Nowhere in either of those two reports do we see anything that is recognized here in this Bill 18, so I would request from the Chair that the Tony Dean report—

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Point of order: Ms. Hoggarth.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Could you rule whether these comments are in order? We’ve passed section 1, and I believe we’re supposed to move on—we don’t go back discussing section 1 again.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you for the point of order. Mr. Hillier, I will remind you that we are speaking to section 2.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes, and it’s also part of the standing orders that I can call for papers, persons or things. I’m calling on the Chair to provide a copy of the Tony Dean report and the Harry Arthurs report. Both are very much to do with this bill. I’d like to have those reports brought to the committee’s attention so that they can actually read what we’ve paid for: for consultants to provide this Legislature with guidance and direction.

I think that that’s fundamentally part of our privilege as members of this Legislature. It’s part of the standing orders, and I would call for those two reports—the Harry Arthurs report and the Tony Dean report—to be brought forward.

I’d like to just mention here as well that, although it was nice to see the member from Eglinton–Lawrence speak, the only person I saw in my time in the House speaking to this bill from the government side who is here today is the parliamentary assistant, to engage in a nice 20-minute infomercial. But surely the other Liberal members on this committee—I didn’t hear their voices in the debate on this bill. They must feel somewhat dissatisfied that they were prevented from speaking to this bill as wel.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much.

Any other questions or comments?

So section 2: Shall section 2—

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Pardon me?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’ve requested that those be brought. I did not hear a response.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The Clerk has duly noted that. As such, I’m sure it’s going to take some time to gather those two particular reports, and the Clerk will forward those to the committee members as soon as possible.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Can we have some indication when those reports will be brought to committee?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Madam Clerk, go ahead.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): I will provide them as soon as possible.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Would that be today?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I think, in all fairness, Mr. Hillier, we will—

Mr. Randy Hillier: It was just a question. I’m just wondering if you think you would be able to possibly get them here today.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I’ll ask the Clerk’s office: As quickly as possible, if you could provide those reports to the committee, it would be greatly appreciated.

So shall section 2 carry?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Recorded vote.

Mr. Mike Colle: On section 2?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): On section 2, recorded vote.

Mr. Randy Hillier: And I’ll call for a 20-minute recess.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): That is in order. Thank you. A 20-minute recess granted.

The committee recessed from 1521 to 1541.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I call the meeting back to order. We have before us a request for a recorded vote on section 2.

Ayes

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Those opposed?

The motion is carried.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, on a point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): A point of order: Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, previously I requested the Harry Arthurs and Tony Dean reports, being consistent with standing order 110(b). Just to reiterate, that’s also in section 35(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act. I’ll just read it: “The assembly may at all times command and compel the attendance before the assembly or a committee thereof of such persons, and the production of such papers and things, as the assembly or committee considers necessary for any of its proceedings or deliberations.” I really do believe that it’s important that all members of this committee have seen and have taken time to review the Arthurs and Dean reports, and I would move a motion that this committee stand adjourned until such time as those documents are provided to the committee.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you for your request for a point of order. According to the order from the House, we will continue. The Clerk’s office is doing what they can to provide those documents—

Mr. Randy Hillier: I move a motion that we adjourn, to be consistent with standing order 110(b) and 35(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act. I move that motion that we stand adjourned until such time as those—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Give me a minute.

Thank you, Mr. Hillier. Any motions of that nature are out of the scope of the order of the House that was made effective October 28. I will call that request out of order. We will continue to move forward with section 3 of the bill.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, I would kindly just refer this—an order of the House cannot be in contravention to the Legislative Assembly Act that creates the House. The standing orders, I would agree, but the Legislative Assembly Act clearly—and I’ve read it: “The assembly may at all times command and compel the attendance before the assembly or a committee thereof of such persons, and the production of such papers and things, as the assembly or committee considers necessary for any of its proceedings or deliberations.” An order of the House cannot be contrary to the Legislative Assembly Act. The only way that can be done is by the government introducing a bill to amend the Legislative Assembly Act, which they have not done.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. Thank you for your point of order, but after some thought on the intent of the Legislative Assembly Act and the—

Mr. Randy Hillier: This will be a point of privilege raised in the House.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): —order of the House on October 28, we are mandated to move forward here. I respect the request from a particular member, but I believe that a request to adjourn the meeting would have to come from the whole House. So I’m prepared to rule that we will continue, Mr. Hillier. I’m going to make a ruling. Feel free to—

Mr. Randy Hillier: If you prevent a motion to that effect to come on the floor, I would challenge that that is a breach of privilege.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Interesting.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I will raise it in the House.

Mr. Mike Colle: Don’t be threatened, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Randy Hillier: No, no. I’m just saying, let’s—

Mr. Mike Colle: Don’t let him threaten you. He can do what he wants.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you, Mr. Hillier, but all motions before this committee would have to have been filed prior to 1 o’clock on the—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Amendments. Amendments had to be filed—that’s correct—not motions.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Right, but as such, it is in the mandate of the committee to move forward with the bill according to the order of October 28. So I have no alternative than to call—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Okay, I just want to be clear: You’re preventing a motion with respect to standing order 110(b) and section 35(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act from being presented to this committee.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you, Mr. Hillier. I’m going to take a five-minute break to review your request, and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.

The committee recessed from 1549 to 1600.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Back to order. After much thoughtful consideration—Mr. Hillier had moved that we recess until such time as two reports were being tabled to the committee.

Mr. Joe Dickson: Excuse me, Chair. Could you speak a little louder, please?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Hillier had requested that the committee recess until such time as we receive the two reports that he aforementioned. The Clerks’ office is doing what they can to provide the committee members with those. As such, we are still governed by the order from the House and I’m going to declare his motion to recess out of order. We will continue with the clause-by-clause, as mandated in the order of October 28, 2014.

It’s 4 o’clock at this point, so we are going to—let me just verify that. It is 4:01.

Mr. Mike Colle: Can we get a clock in here? I moved that last meeting. We deserve—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): That’s out of order, that you move a clock at this time. So we will continue to move with our responsibilities at hand. Section 3—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair?

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Those opposed?

Carried.

We’ll move to schedule 2, section 3.

Mr. Randy Hillier: There’s an amendment there. Recorded vote.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I believe there’s an amendment. Schedule 2, section 3, subsection 23.1(10) of the Employment Standards Act.

We’re going to change things up a little bit. We won’t be voting right away on the motions. In the event that there is a future request for a recorded vote, we will just move those all to the end.

1610

Mr. Randy Hillier: Pardon me, Chair?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Yes.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Under what authority—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Do we move forward in that manner of procedure?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): It says, according to the standing order from the House, “Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 129(a).” So that means, when there’s a request for a recorded vote, we will just stop there, move to the next section, and then we will revisit the exact same sections, one by one, that have been requested for the recorded vote.

Mr. Randy Hillier: And that will be done within a 20-minute time frame?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): No; you’re allowed one 20-minute recess during the entire process.

Mr. Randy Hillier: So we’re going to go through all the motions, and if there’s a recorded division, there won’t actually be a recorded division; that will be put off to the end.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Correct.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’m just trying to understand this now. So the motion will be read into—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Read into the record.

Mr. Randy Hillier: If there is not a vote, it will be read into the record again at a later time for a vote at the end?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Whenever there’s a request for a recorded vote, that’s considered a division, and that will get moved to the end. In essence, I will read these. If in the event a member requests a recorded vote, I will then move to the next one and then we will come back and revisit all the division motions that were requested. So, exactly what you’re saying.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Okay.

Mr. Mike Colle: A point of order?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): A point of order: Mr. Colle.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to move that we have a recorded vote for every amendment, from the beginning until the end—every single amendment and every question.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay, I believe that would be in order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I would be in favour of that.

Mr. Mike Colle: Do it in advance.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay.

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thanks for your patience, everyone.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Let’s go forward.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): From what I understand, and maybe the Clerk is going to have to clarify this, there is one 20-minute recess allowed, which could be taken at this time. We are going to continue as we have been doing. I don’t think there has to be a request now. We’re going to do recorded votes on every motion. Is that what I understand?

Mr. Randy Hillier: No, the motion was out of order, is it not? Because it’s contrary to what the time allocation motion says. That’s what you used on me.

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): There has been a request for a blanket recorded vote on all motions and all amendments. If we have consensus in the committee—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Opposed.

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): We don’t need consensus?

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): We’ll have a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1615 to 1620.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): We’re back from the recess. I’d like to thank Trevor, the Clerk, for guidance.

Is it the committee’s wish that we take a 20-minute recess at this point?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): That is in order: a 20-minute recess, effective right now.

The committee recessed from 1620 to 1640.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay, back to order. I hope everyone enjoyed their 20-minute recess.

We will move to schedule 2, section 3. We have an amendment to subsection 23.1(10) of the Employment Standards Act. It’s a PC motion on page 1.

Shall the motion carry?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Mr. Hillier?

Mr. Randy Hillier: It is procedure that the mover of the amendment reads the amendment into the record.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): You have the right to move that—oh, sorry, they’re all deemed moved. Having said that—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Okay. Can we have that translated into French?

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): At this point we’re just voting, but we can have all the amendments translated into the French language.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Is that after we vote or before we vote?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I think we would have to do that after we vote, Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: So you are not going to allow them to be translated prior to the vote?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I don’t think, at this particular opportunity, we have that luxury.

Mr. Randy Hillier: So, a refusal. I just want to be—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I’m not refusing. What we can do as a committee is, I can request the Clerk to provide copies of the amendments at a later date. The ones that will pass will definitely be provided in both official languages, as I’m a strong supporter of both official languages.

Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, are we not reading the amendment into the record? Stockwell Day made a—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): It is deemed moved that subsection 23.1(10) of the Employment Standards Act, as set out in section 3 of schedule 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

“Review

“(10) Before October 1, 2020 and every five years thereafter, the minister shall cause a review of the minimum wage to be commenced and, upon date of completion, must publish the findings on a website of the government of Ontario.”

Mr. Randy Hillier: That sounds better.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Recorded vote.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Carried.

I’m going to get laryngitis and say I can’t.

Schedule 2, section 5, subsections 74.18(1) to (4) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000: This is an NDP amendment on page 3.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Chair, I’d love for you to read this one out for me, please.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you, Mr. Natyshak.

Oh, you want me to read it?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): You don’t want to read it?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Well, I thought we had you reading them out.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. I shall do that. I love to read.

It is deemed moved that subsections 74.18(1) to (4) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, as set out in section 5 of schedule 2 to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

“Agency and client jointly and severally liable

“74.18(1) Subject to subsection (2), if an assignment employee was assigned to perform work for a client of a temporary help agency during a pay period, and the agency fails to pay the employee the amounts described in subsection (3) that are owing to the employee for that pay period, the agency and the client are jointly and severally liable for the amounts.

“Same, more than one client

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Schedule 2, section 6, subsection 91.1(2) of the Employment Standards Act: a PC on number 5—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Could you read it into the record?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): It is deemed moved that subsection 91.1(2) of the Employment Standards Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule 2 to the bill, be struck out.

Those in favour?

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Schedule 2, section 6, subsection 91.1(3) clause (c) of the Employment Standards Act—

Mr. Randy Hillier: If you could read that into the record.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much, Mr. Hillier.

It is deemed moved that subsection 91.1(3), clause (c) of the Employment Standards Act, as set out in section 6 of schedule 2 to the bill, be struck out.

Those in favour?

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Just on a point of order, Chair: I know the member from Eglinton–Lawrence got—everything was stacked up and agreed that we wouldn’t have to call for deferred votes. I was wondering if I could get the same attitude for reading the amendments into the record?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): It would be my pleasure to grant you that privilege.

Mr. Mike Colle: Wait a minute. We’re out of order here.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Yes, something is wrong.

Mr. Mike Colle: In the amendments we have, we have subsection 10(2) of schedule 2.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): That’s an NDP motion that comes down a little further. Right now we’re dealing with schedules, so we’re at schedule 2, section 7. We have to do sections 7, 8 and 9. They’re not in your package because there are no amendments to these sections.

Mr. Mike Colle: So this is a vote on the section.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Correct.

Mr. Mike Colle: Oh, okay.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Without an amendment, right?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Correct. There will be three of them.

Hillier, Yurek.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is carried.

Moving right along to schedule 3, section 1: We have an amendment to schedule 3, subsection 127.3(1) of the Labour Relations Act, Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. It’s a PC motion, and it is deemed moved.

Subsection 127.3(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as set out in schedule 3 of section 1 to the bill, be struck out and the following added:

“Application of section

“127.3(1) This section applies if a trade union and an employer, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, have entered into a collective agreement.”

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, things are out of order in my package. I have amendment number 14. You’re on amendment 14?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Did I skip one?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes, I believe you did.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I think I skipped one, so I’ll read them again. I skipped two pages. Thank you, Mr. Hillier, for the clarification.

It is deemed moved that subsection 127.3(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as set out in schedule 3 of section 1 to the bill, be struck out and the following added:

“Application of section

“127.3(1) This section applies if a trade union and an employer, including the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, have entered into a collective agreement.”

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Moving right along:

Schedule 3, section 1, subsection 127.3(1) of the Labour Relations Act, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: a PC motion on page 15.

It is deemed moved that subsection 127.3(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as set out in schedule 3 of section 1 to the bill, be struck out and the following added:

1710

“Application of section

“127.3(1) This section applies if a trade union and an employer, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, have entered into a collective agreement.”

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

For the essence of time, I’m going to rule that I will try to speed things up a little bit here since the wording is the same in all of the next number of amendments up to amendment 40, from 16 to 40. I will mention in my opening remarks which ministry it is—actually, I’ll do one more so that we know exactly what the wording is. I will do that at this point.

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

I think we’re getting the gist of what’s happening here.

We’ll deal with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It’s a PC motion on page 19.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Again, an amendment to the Labour Relations Act, Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure: a PC motion on page 20.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

An amendment to the Labour Relations Act, Ministry of Education: PC motion, page 21.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, a point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Point of order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: To be consistent with Speaker Stockwell’s ruling, you still have to read “schedule 3, section 1, subsection 127.3(1) of the Labour Relations Act” and then include the ministry name.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): And how am I supposed to sleep tonight—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Like a baby.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. Very good. I can accommodate that request.

Schedule 3, section 1, subsection 127.3(1), Labour Relations Act, Ministry of Education: PC motion on page 21.

Ayes

Mr. Randy Hillier: Your pronunciation—was that “directorate”?

Hillier, Yurek.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is carried. We’re moving right along.

We’ll move to schedule 4. That’s on page 41 of your binder. Schedule 4, subsection 1(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, paragraph 4: Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. I will read this one, with Mr. Hillier’s approval, so that everyone knows what the content of the amendment is, and then we will proceed in a similar manner for the next couple of hundred, it looks like.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): We’ll get there.

It is deemed moved that paragraph 4 of the definition of “worker” in subsection 1(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as set out in section 1 of schedule 4 to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

“4. A person who receives training from an employer, including the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, but who, under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, is not an employee for the purposes of that act because the conditions set out in subsection 1(2) of that act have been met.”

It’s a PC motion on page 41. Those in favour?

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

A PC amendment on page 42. Schedule 4, subsection 1(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, paragraph 4: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Those in favour?

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Mr. Randy Hillier: A point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Point of order, Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I do want you to review Speaker Stockwell’s ruling on how you’re reading the amendments in. I do not believe that is consistent with his ruling, in that the decision to do that in the fashion that you’re doing it is an authority reserved by the Speaker of the House, not the Chair of the committee.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. Thank you for your point of order. What I will do is, I will move it one more time so that everyone can continue to get the content of the motion, and then I will continue to refer back to section 77(b) of the standing orders, where I will try to advance the business of the committee as appropriately as possible. Thank you for your point of order.

1730

I move that paragraph 4 of the definition of “worker” in subsection 1(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as set out in section 1 of schedule 4 to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

“(4) A person who receives training from an employer, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, but who, under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, is not an employee for the purposes of that act because the conditions set out in subsection 1(2) of that act have been met.”

I think that was already defeated, so I will correct myself and go to—okay, that was already dealt with, so we’ll do the next one. Rural affairs was done, right?

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Schedule 4, section 1, subsection 1(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, paragraph 4, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change: PC motion on page 51.

Mr. Joe Dickson: Just on a point of order—

Mr. Mike Colle: Yes, there’s a misprint there.

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

The amendment on page 55 is the exact same as on page 54—Ministry of Government and Consumer Services—so I will call that one out of order.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, Martins.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Mr. Randy Hillier: On a point of order, Mr. Chair: I just got the ruling from Speaker Stockwell. I want to just point out that I believe the ruling of the Chair and how the amendments are being read are not consistent with the standing orders, as clarified by Speaker Stockwell. I can read Speaker Stockwell’s ruling, if you like, or you may want to reconsider. Maybe I should just read his ruling into the record so that—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I’d appreciate it if you’d read it to us since it’s on a point of order.

1740

Mr. Randy Hillier: Okay. Maybe I’ll shorten it up, or maybe—

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Point of order: Can we have copies, please?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): If there’s a request for copies, that would be more than appropriate.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The whole thing?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: No, we can read it later.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): So do you want copies prior, or do you want him to read it into the record and provide copies?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: He can read it in—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Why don’t we just—quickly. I’ll give you a minute to sum it up, and then—

Mr. Randy Hillier: This is a Speaker’s ruling regarding amendments in committee:

“The practice of requiring an amendment to be read provides all members present with the opportunity to hear the proposed amendment. For the Chair, the Clerks and those members who have received the printed amendments in advance, it is an opportunity to compare what is being read with the printed text that is before them. The fundamental parliamentary principle behind this procedure is that every member has a right to know what he or she is voting on.

“Under a time allocation motion such as we are currently operating under”—this, again, is the Speaker’s ruling—“the procedure is altered somewhat. The first part of the process is eliminated by virtue of the terms of the motions which state the amendments are deemed to have been moved. This does not, however, mean that the amendment is also deemed to have been read from the Chair. Indeed, the reading from the chair in this circumstance would be the first time the amendment is ever heard. The Chair may only dispense with the reading of the amendment with unanimous consent, even in the face of a time allocation motion such as the one we are operating under.”

I can continue, but I think you get the drift. This has been done in the past. It has been considered and discussed, and the Speaker has ruled. I believe and I would move that the amendments be read into the record in a manner consistent with the past ruling by the Speaker.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you for your point of order.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Point of order: I think it needs to be read again so the Clerk can hear it. Did you get it from him just now?

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much for your point of order, Mr. Hillier. With all due respect to Speaker Stockwell’s ruling at that time, from what I understand, the amendments to the standing orders follow and are taking into consideration that ruling. Maybe we can get some confirmation as to the actual date of that ruling versus the changes that have come forward in the standing orders.

As such, I appreciate what’s in there. I will continue my work under the standing orders as they are at this particular point. I believe that all members have copies and have had copies of all the amendments. They are all very similar in nature, with just one name change on them. I have, on occasion, read numerous times just so that the committee members are well aware of what they’re voting on. So I do have, as Chair, the confidence that people around this table know what they’re voting on. Respectfully, I take your point of order and we will continue.

We will move to subsection—

Mr. Joe Dickson: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Point of order from Mr. Dickson.

Mr. Joe Dickson: If I may, when MPP Hillier speaks, I’m very interested in what he has to say. I’m just wondering if he might elevate his voice one octave so I can hear a little better, because I want to hear what he’s saying.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’ll be happy to comply. I have to say, Joe, that this is the first time anybody has ever told me that I should raise my voice more, but I certainly will.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you. The respect here is wonderful. I’m quite impressed at how we can all work together and care about what other people are saying.

Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing: PC motion on page 59.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Perhaps I could just read the name of the different ministry now.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, a point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): A point of order, Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Maybe just for the committee’s benefit: We’re dealing with a lot of amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Maybe we could have a copy of the Occupational Health and Safety Act brought to the committee for the members.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): There’s been a request by Mr. Hillier for a copy of the Occupational Health and Safety Act to be brought to the committee. I will ask the Clerk to make those arrangements to get you that act as soon as possible.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you, Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): You’re welcome.

Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the OHSA, Advisory Council on Drinking Water Quality and Testing Standards: PC motion, page 70.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Advisory—oh, we did that one, didn’t we?

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): We’re on 71. That motion was defeated, by the way—the previous one.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Seventy was, not 71.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Seventy was.

Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Advisory Council to the Order of Ontario: PC motion on page 71.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Would everyone be interested in a 10-minute recess in order to consult with the Clerk on a matter of importance such as what everyone wants to eat?

Interjections: Agreed.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): So we will have about a 10-minute recess—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Can you show that that was unanimous, that we all agreed on that?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Oh, good.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Let the record state that, please.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I appreciate that.

A 10-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1754 to 1809.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Back to order, everyone. I hope you enjoyed your break.

We’ll move to the PC amendment on page 72: subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Agricorp.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Point of order, Speaker.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): “Chair,” thank you very much. Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: “Chair,” pardon me. I don’t want to elevate you too far up. You’ve been doing a marvellous job, but—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Just wait.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Two points of order. The first one: I noticed that there’s a new member on. I’m just wondering if that member is subbed in and is a voting member.

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Okay. The second point of order: I just want to again refer the Chair to the French Language Services Act, section 3(1): “Everyone has the right to use English or French in the debates and other proceedings of the Legislative Assembly.” I would request that the amendments be read into the record in both English and French.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Are you prepared, Mr. Hillier, to read those amendments in French?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Sure, as long as I have them translated first.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I don’t believe we have them available at this point in the other—

Mr. Randy Hillier: I know that you’re fluently bilingual.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I do well enough. Although I’m a huge supporter of that, I don’t believe that we have those documents translated at this point. So I’ll take your point of order under advisement and request the Clerk to provide the committee with those translated amendments as quickly as they can.

Mr. Randy Hillier: No, the point of order was that they be read in in both English and French.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I don’t think we have them available here at this time, but I would be happy to do the same thing that I would be doing here, if they were made available.

Having said that, thank you for your point of order. We shall—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Just a point of clarification, Chair: Would it be possible, then, to have an in-house translator, at least, read into the Hansard in French, or an on-the-fly type thing? Is that a possibility?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): That is a possibility. Madam Clerk, what is the Legislative Assembly capable of doing at this point?

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you, Mr. Natyshak. Just to make comments on your point of clarification, I believe that there is another committee room that does have French-language translation available. Had this request been made prior to the meeting, I think we would have been able to accommodate it, but under these circumstances, we don’t have it available at this time. I know the Clerk’s office will work diligently to provide copies of the amendments in our second official language, or jointly—two official languages. Having said that, we will continue to work as mandated by the House.

Mr. Yurek on a point of order.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: You gave Mr. Hillier the choice of reading into Hansard the amendments in French, so I would assume it extends to reading them in English as well. We will gladly read our amendments into Hansard. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I’m not sure—

Mr. Jeff Yurek: You offered to Mr. Hillier to read the amendments in French.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Does he have them available?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: However, since we have French and English as our choice, we choose to read our amendments into Hansard in English going forward.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Again, a point of clarification, Chair: You’re assuring the committee that all amendments and all proceedings will eventually be translated into the French language?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I believe Hansard provides bilingual translation. Is that correct?

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay, thank you for your points of order and clarification. There is no simultaneous translation available today to deal with this.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Sorry, there is no simultaneous—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Not in this room. What Hansard does is, if there’s a member that chooses to address the committee in French, then that will be recorded in French as well as English. Unfortunately, we don’t have that at this particular point.

M. Taras Natyshak: OK. Alors, juste une autre question.

Le Président (M. Grant Crack): Oui.

M. Taras Natyshak: Vous avez dit que c’était la responsabilité du comité d’avoir la traduction, des services de traduction. Qui est responsable de demander cette traduction avant que le comité commence?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Merci pour la question. I think I’ll respond so that everybody can respond. I think this is a broader issue for the Legislative Assembly to address—sorry.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): As I indicated, we’re not set up for simultaneous translation in this room. But in the event that a request had been made prior, we could have prepared for that. I respect the requests that are being made, but I think we as legislators should be rethinking about how we conduct business in this House.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: And I can appreciate that, and I thank you for your position on that, Chair. I just want to have you clarify who is responsible for assuring that there are translation services prior to the start of the committee. Is it the responsibility of any individual member of the committee? Does the Clerk take care of that or is it the Chair?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I think what we’re getting into is a broader issue as to the setup of how we conduct business as legislators here in the Legislative Assembly. We do obviously have some rooms that have simultaneous translation and other rooms that don’t. As I just indicated, perhaps it would be a good idea if we as legislators reviewed how we provide services to the public in both official languages. But to answer your question, at this particular point, the committee is set up in this particular room and there’s been no provision made for translation services.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: So there’s no set rule as to who requests translation services? Or is it simply, through the luck of the draw, if you get into the other committee room that does have that service, then you do get translated Hansard?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Well, I appreciate the questions coming to me as Chair, but—

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m sure you’re as interested in it as—and I know you are.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Yes.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’d just like to know, for clarification, how do we ensure—you know, who’s responsible for ensuring that there is translation available through committee work?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I think we have work to do as legislators here in the province in order to ensure that we provide services in both official languages. I don’t know if this is the forum to do this. It’s great that it’s coming up so that we can continue these discussions as we move forward to better serve the population.

Unfortunately, as Chair, all I can do is continue to move forward with the order from the House from October 28 and continue to deal with the business that’s before the committee, taking under advisement some of the issues that have been raised here this evening.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s not an option; it is a statutory obligation under the French Language Services Act that the proceedings in this Legislature are available in both languages. If that can’t be accommodated in this committee, then this committee is in violation, and there is no other avenue other than to relocate to a room that has those translation services available, or adjourn until such time that those translation services can be provided in this committee room. Anything less would be a failing and a contradiction to our own statutes.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I’m going to say that I respect everything that you’re saying. I just would like to indicate that, although this is an important issue, for it to be brought up at this particular point is something I can only, as Chair, take under advisement. We as legislators, especially the legislators in the past, should have probably undertaken some discussions on how to serve the public.

Again, I appreciate everyone bringing it forward, the numbers that have spoken to it, but we’re here this evening—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, maybe I’ll just—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): —to do the best that we can under the rules and guidelines that we have been given, and that past committees have been given as well. Because—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): —it’s not only this particular committee, Mr. Hillier; it’s many of the other committees.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s others, yes. But—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): So it’s a broader issue that I think we need to address through the assembly.

Mr. Randy Hillier: —when we enact laws here in this Legislature and they’re for people to abide by—it’s not optional for somebody to abide by the speed limits, it is the law; they must. When we pass laws that we compel ourselves to do things, again, they’re not optional for us; we must compel. Neither prince nor pauper is above the law here. We have laws that compel us to act in certain ways, and I’m being told that we cannot be in compliance with our own law in this committee. To ask us to break the law is unacceptable.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. I think I’ve made my point. I appreciate the points as well. I would suspect that, in the future, as we move forward, it’s probably incumbent upon members of the committee and members of this Legislature who want to have the services translated to make that request to ensure that the committee will be in a room that has simultaneous translation. Unfortunately, that’s not the case at this particular point, and as such—

Mr. Randy Hillier: But Chair, it’s—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): —as such, I just have to rule—you’re making some great points. I think it’s broader than the work that we’re doing right now. It’s a fundamental right, as you’re indicating.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s an obligation in the law for us to do it. Us sitting here, in violation of the law—you’re asking us to be lawbreakers. I find that atrocious, that we would say, “Well, we just can’t abide by the law, so we’re going to disregard the law and we will violate the law.”

I don’t believe that anybody ever got any schooling when they came here that it is our individual responsibility to make sure that the Legislative Assembly brings forth all the technology and all the things that are required by statute before we come to a committee room. It is the assembly’s business to ensure that they are conducting and have rooms that are in compliance with the law. If we can’t have that, then this committee hearing is, like I said, in violation of the law, is not legitimate and should be adjourned until such time that we bring the committee room into compliance with the law.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you, Mr. Hillier.

Ms. Hoggarth.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: For my information, does every committee do that?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): No, not that I’m aware of.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: So there may have been many committees that have not done that. So we’re just doing this now to stall.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I can’t particularly judge one way or another, but what I can tell you is that it would be something that requires greater discussion in the future on behalf of the legislators.

We’ll take a two-minute recess here, and I want to consult with—

Mr. Joe Dickson: I have the next point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay.

The committee recessed from 1824 to 1826.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much.

Mr. Dickson, you had a point of order?

Mr. Joe Dickson: I do, Mr. Chair. As I went around the room, I realized I have spoken to every elected member here on more than one occasion, and on all occasions, they were in English, so quite obviously, everyone here fully understands English. The meeting is being carried on in English at the moment, albeit some points that were raised you can certainly review as time goes on or in the fullness of time. But I have to suggest to you that we’re not proceeding with the meeting, and that’s what we’re here for. I don’t understand why we’re not here working, getting the work done.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I’m going to do one more point of order—is it a point of order, Mr. Natyshak?

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): And then a point of order there, and then we’re going to continue with the business.

M. Taras Natyshak: Merci, monsieur le Président. J’apprécie la position de M. Dickson, mais ce n’est pas vraiment le point. Le point est que l’information que nous présentons ici avec ce projet de loi, un projet de loi qui vient du gouvernement—il devrait être possible pour les francophones de la province de l’Ontario de connaître et de savoir ce que le gouvernement nous présente.

Je regarde mon collègue du gouvernement—il me regarde maintenant et je ne pense pas qu’il a l’habileté, parce que nous n’avons pas de service de traduction, de connaître ce que moi je dis ici. C’est une faute que nous présentons ici, et quelque chose que j’espère que le gouvernement essaye de changer aujourd’hui même.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Merci, Mr. Natyshak.

Ms. Hoggarth, and then we’re going to continue.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’ll pass.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much, everyone, for bringing the points of order forward. We are going to continue with the business as mandated by the House, so we will continue.

We are on 73, I believe. Is that correct?

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): So 73, subsection (1)—

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Chair, you didn’t acknowledge my point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I didn’t know you had a point of order.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: When I spoke, you said yes. So I will read this, then?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Is this your amendment?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: It’s a PC amendment.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay, very good. Go ahead.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): No? No, that’s right. It’s deemed.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: You offered Hillier to read in in French.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I don’t know if I necessarily offered him that.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: You did.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I said, “Are you able to?” Anyway, I’d have to check.

The bottom line is, we’re going to move forward. These are all deemed to have been moved. If there is a request for me—

Mr. Jeff Yurek: So you’re not consistent on your rulings? Is that right?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I didn’t make a ruling before.

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Board of Negotiation: PC motion, page 85.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion’s defeated.

PC motion page 86 is the same as 85: It is out of order. That’s what I am being told.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Eighty-six isn’t out of order.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Eighty five—

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Cancer Care Ontario: PC motion page 94.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

I remind all the members to make sure that their hands aren’t up prior to me asking for the vote. It’s easier for the Clerk to tabulate. Thank you very much, everyone.

Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Case Management Masters Remuneration Commission: PC motion, page 95.

1840

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. Point of order, Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Pursuant to standing order 110(b), I move that the committee be provided a copy of the following document as it is relevant to the deliberations of clause-by-clause amendments to Bill 18—

Mr. Joe Dickson: Point of order: I can’t hear the speaker.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Oh—that the committee be provided a copy of the following document as it is relevant to the deliberations of clause-by-clause amendments to Bill 18, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour, and

That, pursuant to section 3 of the French Language Services Act, which states that everyone has the right to use English or French in the debates and other proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, copies be provided to the committee in both official languages, English and French—I would request that the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act (Live-in Caregivers and Others) of 2009 be provided to the committee in both English and French.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you for your point of order. I will request the Clerks’ office to provide the documents as soon as possible, but in the meantime, we will continue the business at hand.

Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Centennial Centre of Science and Technology (Ontario Science Centre): PC motion, page 96.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Chair, pursuant to standing order 110(b), I move that the committee be provided with a copy of the following document as it is relevant to the deliberations of clause-by-clause amendments to Bill 18, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour; and

Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the OHSA, Confederation College of Applied Arts: PC, page 109. Those in favour?

Mr. Randy Hillier: That was not complete, Chair.

Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Point of order, Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay, a point of order.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Thank you, Chair. Pursuant to standing order 110(b)—that the committee be provided a copy of the following document, as it is relevant to the deliberations of clause-by-clause amendments to Bill 18, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour; and that, pursuant to section 3 of the French Language Services Act, which states that everyone has the right to use English or French in debates and other proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, the copies provided to the committee be provided in both official languages, English and French. I’m asking for the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): These are not points of order, so I’m going to be ruling them out of order in the future.

Mr. Randy Hillier: They are pursuant to standing order 110.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Well, what we’re doing is that we’re going to be dealing with the order from the House here at committee. I’m not going to argue about it. We’re going to continue the business.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Just for clarification: You’re suggesting that there cannot be any points of order during this committee?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): This point of order has been brought up. This is the third occasion, and it’s not a point of order, so—

Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Do you want that side of the table to go first, so we can continue? Okay. We’ll take a recess so that we can eat. Is that fair enough? Okay, 15 minutes.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Schedule 4, subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Council of the College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I do have this translated into French, if you’d like to read that in the French as well for me.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you for providing the committee with the translation but the amendments were brought forward to the committee in English, so we’ll continue in English. Thank you very much.

Mr. Randy Hillier: You’re refusing to read—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I’m not refusing. We’re just going to go by the order from the House. We’re going to continue under standing order 77. I would be more than happy to read that into the record.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s a point of privilege. It’s not a point of order; it’s a point of privilege that the House, under the French Language Services Act and under the Legislative Assembly Act, is required to provide proceedings in both English and French.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): When amendments are tabled to the House and the committee, they are tabled in either English or French or both. I absolutely have confidence that this is a translation or close—I am not sure, I haven’t had the time to study that. As such, we will go by the order from the House and we will continue with what was presented to the committee at the time of filing. The deadline, I believe, was 1 p.m., the 31st, on Friday. Had you done them in both official languages, I’d have been more than happy to—

Mr. Randy Hillier: It is the assembly’s obligation under law—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. I thank you very much for your point and thank you for doing that—

Mr. Randy Hillier: It is a point of privilege.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): But we’re going to continue the mandate.

Mr. Randy Hillier: You are denying the people of Ontario who have French as their mother tongue—

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): We’re going to continue to move on and we’re going to deal with schedule 4, subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Council of the College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Schedule 4, subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the HealthForceOntario marketing and recruiting agency. Those in favour?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Did you read that incorrectly?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The HealthForceOntario marketing and recruiting agency?

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, McMaster board of governors. Those in favour?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Do you want to reread that? I don’t think it’s correct.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): What number are we at—14?

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Same vote.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Do we already have a recorded vote?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Same vote—it’s recorded.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): We’ll have to finish the vote. Those opposed on this one?

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Just for a point of clarification: If you’re requesting the same vote, everyone needs to agree on that, and it has to be done before—

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: On this side?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: It’s more than just your side.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The committee, unanimously, would have to agree to the same vote.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

2020

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the OHSA, Ontario Student Assistance Program Financial Eligibility Advisory Committee.

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the OHSA, Physician Payment Review Board.

Interjection: You did that one.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I did that one?

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Didn’t we just do the Pharmacy Council?

Interjection: If you guys cut down on these committees, we wouldn’t have as many.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): We didn’t do the Pharmacy Council?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes, you did the Pharmacy Council.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): What number are we at?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: You’re on 304.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Oh, thank you very much.

Interjection: Let’s start all over again.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. So we’ll go back.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

Interjection.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Schedule 4, subsection 1(1), paragraph 4 of the OHSA, the Rural Economic Development Advisory Panel.

Interjection.

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Mr. Randy Hillier: A point of order, Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Mr. Hillier.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Defeated.

Schedule 4, section 1—sorry?

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

PC page 369, it is deemed to be moved that paragraph 5 of the definition of “worker” in subsection 1(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as set out in section 1 of schedule 4 to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

“5. Such other persons as may be prescribed who perform work or supply services to an employer, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, for no monetary compensation; (‘travailleur’)”

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

Shall schedule 4, section 1 carry?

Hillier, Yurek.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Schedule 4 is carried.

We have a government amendment: 396, to schedule 5, section 1.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: We’d like to withdraw that, please.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay, so it is withdrawn. I respect that. There will be no changes.

Shall schedule 5, section 1 carry?

Ayes

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Opposed?

Schedule 5, section 1 is carried.

We’ll move to schedule 5, section 2: number 397 in your package.

2110

It is deemed moved that subsection 83(8) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, as set out in schedule 5 of section 2 to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

“Failure to comply

“(8) An employer, including the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, who fails to comply with subsections (6), (7) or (9) shall pay the prescribed amount to the board.”

Ayes

Hillier, Yurek.

Nays

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

We will do the next one. Just to ensure that all members of the committee know, all the next, up to 423, are similar. We’ll make sure that the committee fully understands the impact that these potential amendments make to the bill.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is defeated.

We have schedule 5, section 2, subsection 83(4) to (9) of the WSIA. It’s a government amendment, and I’m going to read the government amendment.

It is deemed moved that subsections 83(4) to (9) of the act, as set out in section 2 of schedule 5 to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

“Regulations re temporary help workers

“(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

“(a) defining a temporary help agency for the purposes of this section;

“(b) requiring that, despite section 72, if a temporary help agency lends or hires out the services of a worker to another employer who participates in a program established under subsection (1) and the worker sustains an injury while performing work for the other employer, the board,

“(i) deem the total wages that are paid in the current year to the worker by the temporary help agency for work performed for the other employer to be paid by the other employer,

“(ii) attribute the injury and the accident costs arising from the injury to the other employer,

“(iii) increase or decrease the amount of the other employer’s premiums based upon the frequency of work injuries or the accident costs or both, and

“(iv) deem the other employer to be an employer for the purposes of sections 58 and 59 in such circumstances as may be prescribed;

“(c) prescribing circumstances for the purposes of subclause (b)(iv);

“(d) requiring that, if a temporary help agency lends or hires out the services of a worker to another employer who participates in a program established under subsection (1) and the worker sustains an injury while performing work for the other employer, the other employer notify the board of the injury;

“(e) for the purposes of a notice required by a regulation made under clause (d), governing the notice, including prescribing the manner in which notice of an injury is to be given, the period of time within which notice is to be given and the parties to whom copies of the notice must be given; and

“(f) prescribing penalties for failure to comply with requirements prescribed under clauses (d) and (e).”

Ayes

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is carried.

Shall schedule 5, section 2, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

Nays

Hillier, Yurek.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is carried.

Schedule 5, section 3—

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. I thought of that.

Section 5, section 2, as amended, is carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 5, section 3. Shall schedule 5, section 3, carry?

Ayes

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): The motion is carried. Schedule 5, section 3, is carried.

Shall schedule 5 carry, as amended?

Ayes

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): None opposed. Schedule 5 is carried, as amended.

Shall the title of the bill carry?

Ayes

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): None opposed. The title of the bill is carried.

Shall Bill 18 carry, as amended?

Ayes

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): None opposed. Bill 18 is carried.

Shall this Chair report the bill to the House as amended?

Ayes

Colle, Dickson, Hoggarth, Kiwala, McGarry, Natyshak.

Nays

Hillier, Yurek.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I shall report the bill to the House, carried, as amended.

I think we all owe a great hand to Sylwia for getting all the names right.

Applause.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): And also to the Chair—just kidding.

I think you all did a great job this evening. I thank you very much. There is no further business to conduct this evening on Bill 18. Thank you for your hard work. This meeting is adjourned until Wednesday at 1 p.m.

The committee adjourned at 2127.

CONTENTS

Monday 3 November 2014

Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014, Bill 18, Mr. Flynn / Loi de 2014 sur l’amélioration du lieu de travail au service d’une économie plus forte, projet de loi 18, M. Flynn G-55

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président

Mr. Grant Crack (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Joe Dickson (Ajax–Pickering L)

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton–Lawrence L)

Mr. Grant Crack (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell L)

Mr. Joe Dickson (Ajax–Pickering L)

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky (Windsor West / Windsor-Ouest ND)

Ms. Ann Hoggarth (Barrie L)

Ms. Sophie Kiwala (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les Îles L)

Ms. Eleanor McMahon (Burlington L)

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson (Huron–Bruce PC)

Mr. Jeff Yurek (Elgin–Middlesex–London PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. Randy Hillier (Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington PC)

Mrs. Cristina Martins (Davenport L)

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry (Cambridge L)

Mr. Taras Natyshak (Essex ND)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Julia Hood, legislative counsel