Labour Relations
Amendment Act, 2000, Bill 139, Mr Stockwell /
Loi de 2000 modifiant la Loi sur les relations de
travail, projet de loi 139, M. Stockwell
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
Chair /
Présidente
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East / -Est L)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton L)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale
PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Elizabeth Baldwin, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1610 in room 151.
LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000
MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL
Consideration of Bill 139, An
Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 / Projet de loi 139,
Loi modifiant la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail.
The Chair (Ms Marilyn
Mushinski): We'll call the meeting to order. This is a
meeting of the standing committee on justice and social policy to
deal with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 139, an Act to
amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995. I will read into the record
the proceedings for this afternoon:
"That, at 4:30 pm, on the day
designated by the committee for clause-by-clause consideration of
the bill, those amendments which have not been moved shall be
deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall
interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or
amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all
remaining sections of the bill, and any amendments thereto. Any
division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions
have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting
period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a)."
In the interest of time, I
know there probably are members of the committee who would like
to address the committee before 4:30, so without further ado-I
see that we haven't got anybody here from the Liberal side yet,
but I will allocate six minutes for each party. We'll start with
you, Mr Christopherson, since the Liberal member is not here.
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): Actually, given the very
few moments that we have, quite frankly, I have given most of my
comments with regard to how totally clear it is that the
government, with Bill 139, continues their attack on unions,
people who are in unions, and in particular with Bill 139,
construction unions. I am not going to repeat all that over and
over. What I would like to do perhaps with the time that's left
is ask the government to present their amendments so that we at
least understand the rationale behind the amendments.
This is a charade. This
really is a charade. So for the 15 minutes that we're going to do
this little public monkey act here, let's at least have some
rationale on the record for the amendments that are being rammed
through along with the rest of the bill.
The Chair:
Do we have a speaker from the government?
Mr Raminder Gill
(Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I know that because
of certain of the House duties the meeting got delayed.
There are a couple of things
I'd like to mention, before we get into the amendments perhaps,
about what this bill does, Bill 139, An Act to amend the Labour
Relations Act, 1995. I'll touch upon and highlight a couple of
things.
One of the things, as we have
discussed in the House as well, is decertification changes. What
this bill does, basically, is allow people in the workplace to
know about the decertification process. We felt that there's
enough information available for certification, and the employers
told us that according to the law they could not in the past say
anything about decertification. So this bill levels the playing
field, where the employees will have the opportunity and the
information that they may need to decertify a union. It also
gives three months before the end of the contract. It used to be
two months. So we have given that extension in this bill, if it
passes. Instead of two months, people now have three months to
make up their mind and apply in time if they want to decertify a
union or if they would rather have a different union. This bill
hopefully allows them that, if passed.
It also gives people vote
clarity in the sense that the question is not lumped together
with the employees if they reject the offer. They may want to go
back; they may want the union to go back and have another kick at
the can rather than saying, "Just because we rejected it, it
should not be automatically taken as a strike vote." We're hoping
that this bill, if passed, will allow that.
Another benefit some of the
jurisdictions are having-and one of those is Sarnia, and perhaps
Marcel Beaubien would want to touch upon that later on-is that
because of the global nature of business these days, companies
can set up business on both sides of the border if they want to.
In this case I'm sure Liberal member Caroline Di Cocco might want
to speak on that as well. This allows management and the unions
to come to an agreement and deviate from a contract that they
had, if they all agree, so that they could get into a new
agreement to make perhaps the labour component of the total
contract maybe more
attractive so that they can win these contracts. It is better for
the workers to be working rather than having very high salaries
and not working. This bill hopefully will allow that in terms of
having the project agreement being able to do that. So there are
a few things that we're bringing in.
Salary disclosure: Just like
the public sector employees, we are asking that the salaries and
benefits of the union management, if they are earning more than
$100,000, be disclosed so that the employees know whether they're
getting the best bang for their buck, getting value for their
money. That in a nutshell is what this bill allows, if
passed.
Marcel, did you want to shed
some more light?
Mr Marcel Beaubien
(Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): No. We've all got six minutes,
and I'll give the Liberal side their six minutes.
The Chair:
There are no further speakers? Mr Agostino, did you wish to
speak?
Mr Dominic Agostino
(Hamilton East): Yes, we'll spend a few minutes each on
this. We haven't got a lot of time here, as usual.
One of the most interesting
points in all this was I believe the acknowledgement at the
announcement by the minister that this bill was strictly asked
for by business, that the consultation basically took place with
business. So it's a bill for business, by business, catered to by
this government. Those are not our words. That was the admission
of the minister when asked. He was also asked to give examples of
where there have been problems, and after about two or three
minutes of hemming and hawing he could not come up with one
specific example of a problem that prompted this bill to come
forward.
Really, this salary
disclosure sunshine law is a red herring; there's no real
objection to that. I think you will find that most union leaders
either have or will be more than pleased to, and despite the
belief of the government members, frankly I think you'll be
surprised at their salary levels and the few that will be
required to be disclosed over the $100,000, unlike most of the
senior staff in the Premier's office who drafted this
legislation.
What this is going to do,
particularly with concern to the area of safety, part of this is
going to allow what I believe to be more non-unionized
construction companies and contractors on job sites. The minister
likes to say that there really isn't a correlation between
unionized and non-unionized sites and injuries. I want to go back
to the statement I made earlier that last year 18 of the 20
deaths in the construction industry occurred in non-unionized
construction sites. The minister says, "That's not a fair
statement because it's disproportionate. There are more
non-unionized sites," and there are, but 18 out of 20 is a
significant percentage, I would suggest-90%. I can tell you the
gap between unionized and non-unionized construction sites is not
90%, by any stretch of the imagination. An inordinately high
number of deaths occurred on non-unionized construction sites.
Clearly there's a health and safety danger here. It is an attempt
to destabilize what I think have been very good contracts and
good labour relations over the last few years.
1620
What I find amazing in all
this-and I'll wrap up-is how this government wraps this up as
trying to protect taxpayers: "The reason we are allowing a
greater opportunity for non-unionized companies to bid on school
boards, municipal projects and hospitals is because we are
concerned for the taxpayers." What I find interesting in that
statement-they threw out a little line in there-is banks. Those
poor banks that just cannot rake in the billions quickly enough
need the protection of this government, or is it simply that
maybe they need the protection of this government so they can
continue to spend $25,000 a table for the Premier's dinner? That
is maybe the rationale why banks are included in this.
This is nothing more than
simply a wish list. This was drafted on Bay Street, for Bay
Street, and then handed to the cabinet and rubber-stamped by Mike
Harris as a payback to his friends for political
contributions.
Ms Caroline Di Cocco
(Sarnia-Lambton): To me, this is another piece of what I
consider anti-labour legislation. I heard the discussion of
project agreements. We have come to project agreements in my
riding, between unions and with industry. This perspective that
we've got to take unionized labour, which has, I believe, added a
great deal to progressive-I won't say legislation, but certainly
inroads. They've made huge inroads when it comes to ensuring that
people make a fair wage, that they have benefits and health and
safety. All of these aspects have been good for families in
Ontario, and unions have done that.
I come from a business family
that runs a unionized construction company. The whole aspect of
skilled labour-I have heard many mid-sized business saying, "We
prefer having good, skilled labour. It doesn't matter that we're
going to pay them some extra money to do the job, because they
are part of that sustainable economic development."
One of the things I find
incredible is, I don't know if you really want to create what I
call a good society-and I've said this in the House as well-but
why not bring non-unionized workers up to the standard of
unionized labour, rather than just saying, "Well, we have to
bring in this legislation because we have to be competitive"? But
it is always competition on the backs of workers. This is where I
fundamentally disagree with the Conservative ideology that unions
are bad. We hear in the House things like "union bosses" and
"business professionals." There's no balance. There is no
acceptance, in my estimation, of the positive inroads in this age
of competition.
What I'm finding in
Sarnia-Lambton-and I just toured Dow Chemical with the plant
manager. They all laud the level of skilled labour we have in our
community, and the standards. A lot of that is due to organized
labour, to organized workers. As a collective, they've made
inroads, and I believe the Conservative ideology is to erode
that. That's the intent. Give them less power so that the
mechanism, the safety issues or all of these things, well,
they'll have to deal with them on an individual basis. It's this
individualism: "You'll have to look after yourself. You don't want unions to
look after you. After all, that's anti-democratic." You phrase it
all around this terminology, and I fundamentally disagree.
This labour legislation, Bill
139-and there's 69 and 147-does the same thing. It erodes the
inroads. It erodes what has worked. What I find incredible is
that as we move into this skilled worker shortage that we're
going to have in this province, in this country-it is
happening-we are actually bringing in legislation that's contrary
to a productive workforce that is protected and well paid. It is
almost as if people don't deserve to get a good wage. They should
be happy with minimum wage or they should be happy with $10 an
hour.
We did a study in
Sarnia-Lambton with the Council for Economic Renewal. I was on
one of the teams. The study was to look at industry, businesses,
and find out what obstacles were there to moving economic
development ahead. Some 87% of the people we interviewed were
non-union. Do you know what their biggest complaint was? It was
labour costs. Some of them were paying their employees $7, $8 and
$9 an hour, but still it was the issue of labour costs. I humbly
submit that workers have a right to earn a fair wage, to the best
possible health and safety standards, and we shouldn't be
bringing them to the lowest common denominator.
I see this legislation. There
are little bits in it that are quite good, but you mask it with
unacceptable anti-labour legislation. I suggest to the
Conservative ideology that we really need to take a look at what
the future is about when it comes to the economic engine, which
is made up of labour and business.
This whole idea that
unionized is somehow the wrong way to go and non-unionized is
what we want to encourage-"We want to encourage democracy in the
workplace"-is wrong-minded. That's about all I have to say on
that matter.
The Chair:
Mr Christopherson, did you have anything else to add?
Mr
Christopherson: I would only respond to the
parliamentary assistant's comments and suggest to him that the
notion of handing out information about how to decertify coming
from this government is not taken by anyone in Ontario as just
providing information. When you link that with extending the
period of time that a decert application can be made, no one is
fooled. Everybody knows. You were unmasked as a government a long
time ago. With the kind of track record you have in terms of
labour legislation that has taken away worker's rights time after
time-and we could sit here and I could go for an hour just
listing the number of changes and rights that you've taken away
from workers-for you to suggest that somehow you have an
altruistic motive here, that you're just trying to help people,
is not going to fool anyone.
You are doing everything you
can to destabilize the labour movement, and the reason is quite
apparent. You've decimated virtually everybody else out there.
The only organized group that has the infrastructure, the
communications ability and the leadership skills to challenge you
is the labour movement.
You win two things by going
after them. You help your friends, and they return those favours
by giving you money for your re-election. This is very much about
money. You changed the election laws so that corporations can
contribute 50% more money than they could before. You changed
that law without the unanimous agreement of all three parties in
the House, which is the first time in the history of Ontario
that's ever happened.
Then you shortened the period
of time in which an election would be held, putting even greater
emphasis on the value of advertising, thereby giving you a
distinct advantage. You've got more money because you changed the
law that lets people contribute more.
This is payback. This is all
about payback. The eight general contractors that benefit the
most from Bill 69 were giving you over $100,000, just those eight
general contractors alone. So don't pretend that this is all
about trying to do anybody a favour.
The whole notion of talking
about how much money people make, the labour movement is not
shook by this. You announced it like: "Oh boy, we are going to
get them now. We've really got them on the run." I don't get any
phone calls. This is not raised by anyone. It's there for anyone
to see. In fact, if this government had one drop of the democracy
that the Ontario labour movement has, you'd be a much better
government. A pox on you totally because this is just clearly
going after workers.
While I've got the moment,
you talk about-
The Chair:
You have 30 seconds.
1630
Mr
Christopherson: I'll take it. You say having a job at a
lower pay is better than no job whatsoever. That's the same
argument we heard at the turn of the century, when the labour
movement was first introduced into this province, where employers
said, "If you don't like the working conditions and the money we
make here, you can go work somewhere else, because we've got
somebody else who will come in."
This is all about watering
down the value of labour, the value of workers, and that's a
benefit to your political friends. Everything else you said
before that is just a lot of spinning and nonsense, and you need
to know that you're not fooling anyone. It would be interesting
to hear a little more from Mr DeFaria, who
happens to represent a lot of the workers who are impacted by
this. I'd like to hear how he defends his government's actions
that are hurting the very constituents he represents.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Christopherson. It is 4:30, so we now will move
into clause-by-clause consideration.
Members of committee, I'm
open to suggestion. We can go through this section by section or
we can collapse the sections to the point of amendment. Is it the
wish of committee that we go from section 1 through to 22
inclusive and then deal with those sections that have amendments?
Is that-
Mr
Christopherson: I'd like to vote. You're asking to
forfeit voting on each section separately?
The Chair:
Yes.
Mr Christopherson: I disagree. I
want a separate vote on each, and recorded.
The Chair:
You want a separate vote on each? OK, that's fine.
Mr
Christopherson: I don't know if you heard me, Chair. I
was also requesting that there be a recorded vote on each
one.
The Chair:
You want a recorded vote on everything, Mr Christopherson?
Mr
Christopherson: Yes, I would, Chair.
The Chair:
Then we'll start with section 1.
Shall section 1 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson, Di
Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 2 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson, Di
Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 3 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson, Di
Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 4 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson, Di
Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 5 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson, Di
Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 6 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson, Di
Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 7 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 8 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 9 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 10 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 11 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 12 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 13 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 14 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 15 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 16 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 17 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 18 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 19 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 20 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 21 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 22 carry, as
amended?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Government amendment number
1.
Mr Gill: I
have an amendment. I move-
The Chair:
I'm sorry, you can't speak to any amendment after 4:30, Mr Gill.
This is government amendment number 1.
Mr
Christopherson: On a point of order, Chair: Are you
telling us that we won't be given an opportunity to speak to any
of these?
The Chair:
That's correct.
Mr
Christopherson: And that would be because, why?
The Chair:
Because, as I read, the order of the House stated, "At 4:30 pm on
the day designated by the committee for clause-by-clause
consideration of the bill, those amendments which have not been
moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the
committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without
further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to
dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments
thereto."
Mr
Christopherson: Just so I'm 100% clear and anyone else
who is watching, the time allocation motion shut down debate in
the House, denied anybody from the public a chance to speak to
this committee, and we're all muzzled from speaking to these
amendments that have been tabled today. Is that correct?
The Chair:
As I read, Mr Christopherson, there is no further debate or
amendment other than what is already deemed to have been
moved.
We will now consider
government motion number 1.
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 23, as
amended, carry?
1640
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 24 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 25 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 26 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 27 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 28 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 29 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 30 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 31 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 32 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 33 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 34 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Government amendment number
2?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 35, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 36 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 37 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 38 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Government amendment number
3?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 39, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Government amendment number
4?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 40, as
amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall section 41 carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
That carries.
Shall the title of the bill
carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
Shall Bill 139, as amended, carry?
AYES
Beaubien, DeFaria, Elliott,
Gill.
NAYS
Agostino, Christopherson,
Di Cocco.
The Chair:
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House?
