CONTENTS
Thursday 8 October 1992
Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold
ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND) for Mr Wood
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters
*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Kovacs, Jerry, legal counsel, Ministry of Labour
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel:
Spakowski, Mark, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1533 in committee room 1.
LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI
Consideration of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.
The Chair (Peter Kormos): I call the meeting to order. I have some substitutions. George Dadamo is substituting for Randy Hope and it's signed by Shirley Coppen, MPP; not just Shirley Coppen, but Shirley Coppen, MPP, so it must be official. I have a substitution slip, Paul Klopp substituting for Len Wood, and that too is signed not just by Shirley Coppen, the whip, but by Shirley Coppen, MPP, so it's a good substitution slip.
I've got one here, Elizabeth Witmer substituting for Leo Jordan, October 5, 6, 7, 8, 1992, and it's signed by Dianne Cunningham; I know she's an MPP. I have one here, Bob Huget being substituted for by Noel Duignan on October 13, signed by Shirley Coppen, MPP; Wayne Lessard substituting for George Dadamo on October 6, 7 and 13, signed by Shirley Coppen, MPP; Randy Hope substituting for George Dadamo on September 30, October 1, 5 and 8, signed by Shirley Coppen, MPP.
Yes, Mr Offer, MPP?
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): With the help of the clerk, I think as we left off Monday last we were speaking to Ms Witmer's motion. That motion, after some discussion and clarification, was to subsection 7(1), which was basically to repeal subsection 7(1).
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Strike it out.
Mr Offer: Strike subsection 7(1) out.
The Chair: Yes, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: I just wanted to be certain that was Ms Witmer's motion that we're talking to.
The Chair: No, it isn't. That one, you'll recall, similar to a previous one, was not quite in order because of the previous motion, so we're down to Ms Witmer's motion "that subsections 6(2.1) to (2.4) of the act, as set out in subsection 7(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted" etc.
Clerk Pro Tem (Mr Todd Decker): She withdrew that.
Mr Offer: Oh, she withdrew that. Okay, that's fine. I guess the only thing I have as a concern is a motion that I want to move in terms of an amendment to the section myself. I'm just asking for a clarification. If Ms Witmer's not here to speak to her own motion, then I'm not going to speak on her behalf nor certainly the reason for it. But in the event there is a vote, or whatever, called and her amendment loses, I do not want this, of necessity, to rule out my amendment which I wish to make thereafter.
The Chair: This is sort of like a motion in limine.
Mr Offer: I would just like to get a clarification. I'm not going to be speaking to the motion unless Ms Witmer is here to do so. I just want to make certain that the motion I wish to move is not in any way limited.
The Chair: You're referring to your motion "that subsections 6(2.2) to (2.4) of the act, as set out in subsection 7(1) of the bill, be struck out and following substituted:
"Combining full-time and part-time units...
"Non-application...."
Mr Offer: Yes.
The Chair: You haven't moved it yet, but there's nothing apparent there that would make that not in order.
Mr Offer: Okay, fine.
The Chair: That having been resolved, what would you like to say about Ms Witmer's motion?
Mr Offer: There's nothing I can say about it.
The Chair: Would anybody like to say something about it? Ms Murdock, surely you'd want to comment on that as the parliamentary assistant, it being a significant amendment.
Ms Murdock: Actually, I saw Ms Witmer in the hall and I know she's planning on being here, so I hesitate to--
Interjection.
Ms Murdock: Obviously our amendment is taking into consideration the full- and part-time bargaining units and allowing them to be joined, and we are not in agreement at all with Ms Witmer's motion to have the entire thing struck out. Are we speaking to subsection 7(1), subsections 6(2.1) to (2.4), Mr Chair?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Murdock: Right now in the existing legislation under the Labour Relations Act the board has the discretion to do what Ms Witmer is suggesting already. They have, in their discretion, separated the bargaining units. Therefore, this would maintain the status quo, and we're not, evidenced by our amendment in Bill 40, prepared to accept that.
Mr Offer: Following on the comments of the parliamentary assistant, I think what we have here and what we see here is a parting of the minds, so to speak.
Ms Murdock: It is, definitely.
1540
Mr Offer: I think the parting of the minds is founded on the fact that--I don't want to speak for the Conservatives in this matter, and I won't, but it seems there is some feeling on their part that in no cases is there a similar interest between part-time and full-time workers in this province. By the wording in Bill 40, the government seems to indicate that in all cases there are similar interests between part-time and full-time workers in this province.
I must say I disagree with both principles, because I fervently believe that in some cases there are full-time and part-time workers who do share the same interests and who want to be thought of as sharing the same interests. In other cases, in another setting, there will be full-time and part-time workers who do not share the same interests and who do not wish to be thought of as sharing the same interests. That does not mean that one aspect is right or wrong. It is to recognize that there are workplaces that are different, there are work functions that are different and there are employees who are different and who have different interests.
It would seem to me that for legislation to be, first, effective, and second, realistic to the real workforce, we should allow, in legislative form, the workers of that workplace to make the decision. I see in the government's Bill 40 the taking away of that right. It is not allowed for workers of a part-time or full-time nature in a workplace to say: "We do not share the same interests. We do not want to be combined. We do have different interests." I think, fundamentally, that is a wrong and erroneous principle for the government to enshrine in legislation.
It seems to me, dealing with the changing workforce and workplace--I spoke about this a little bit on Monday, when we spoke about the service sector and the fact that many years ago there were primarily full-time persons in the service sector and now there are part-time and permanent part-time, and from that grow different interests. For some, the primary interest may very well be the hourly wage. For others, the primary interest might be benefits, pension. I'm not saying one person is right or wrong in having that as their interest; I'm saying that's what the legislation should allow.
The legislation should allow for workers in workplaces to have different interests if they want that. We shouldn't be dictating that in some committee room at Queen's Park; we should be allowing the workers of this province to make that decision. If the workers in a workplace say, "We don't have and we don't want to be thought of as having the same interests, part-time as to full-time," that should just be fine. It should just be fine, not only for this government but for any government of the day, to say, "That is just the way it is." It isn't right that governments take away that opportunity for a worker to express his or her opinion.
As much as I am concerned about maintaining the traditional community-of-interests arguments, because I don't think they're reflective of the day, so I'm concerned about saying that in no circumstance, mathematically speaking, can workers in a real way express that they do or do not have the same interests, part-time to full-time or vice versa.
I believe this is a real fundamental parting of the ways; certainly for my caucus it is. I've expressed opposition to the purpose clause. I've expressed opposition not only to its wording but also to its being placed as a purpose and not as a preamble. I have expressed concerns on other areas--hopefully, we'll be able to get to them--but this really does address, in my opinion and in the opinion of my caucus, whether legislation is going to allow workers to express their own opinions. Bill 40, in dealing with the part-time and full-time combination, without any question, takes away the rights of workers to that expression.
I can assure you, as I've received an assurance already, that an amendment I will move will deal with this matter in some detail. This is, to me, fundamental for that workforce which is either part-time or full-time. I see this, though it doesn't say it in legislation, as attacking the service sector of this province. That's how I see it. I see Bill 40 as an attack on the full-time and part-time workers of the service sector in this province.
I can tell you I have some very grave concerns about going either to the position that there is no community of interests or to the position that there is always a community of interests, because in the real world out there, in the real workforce out there, they know that they can't be found in four lines in one section of legislation. They know that the four lines or whatever in section 7 of the bill cannot fully indicate who and what they are, that only they can do that, and they can do it by being allowed to vote; that's how they can do it.
They can address their own issues when they are fully and freely allowed to vote and to say whether they do or do not have, in the part-time case, the same interests as their full-time counterparts. This bill takes that away. There's no question, as we will deal with the other sections, as we talk about the mathematics of this, that it does take away the rights of workers to fully and freely exercise their choice. Any piece of labour legislation that does that is, in my opinion, not only flawed but fatally flawed.
If we really believe in giving workers the right to choose, if we really believe in giving the right to part-time workers to combine with full-time, if they want, if we really believe in giving the right to full-time workers to combine with part-time workers, if they want, then we will put it in legislation. This legislation doesn't do it. Mathematically, it does not do it. I've brought it out in the public hearings time and again. Ministry staff agreed with me. They recognized that the legislation can operate in that way.
I looked for a government motion to address this issue and there isn't one. There is not a further government amendment dealing with this matter, and I couldn't believe it. We heard it clearly during the public hearings that we went through. We asked for clarification from ministry officials who properly and rightly and clearly gave us that information. Notwithstanding that, the government has refused to introduce an amendment. But they don't have to introduce an amendment. I'm going to let them off the hook. They don't have to introduce an amendment if they vote in favour of an amendment I will be moving. That will get you off this hook. This will get you off the dilemma.
1550
Even though you haven't brought forward a motion to amend the bill, and I'm critical of that, you will still be able to address the issue by voting in favour of the motion I will be moving when we get to that aspect of the clause-by-clause deliberations. Having said that, I recognize that Ms Witmer is here and we are speaking to her motion and I have nothing to say at this time.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Further discussion?
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I regret I was late. The press was questioning me on an issue.
The intent of this particular motion is to delete subsections 6(2.1) to (2.4), which require the board to combine full-time and part-time employees into a single bargaining unit, and adds a new requirement to section 6 of the act. Section 6 empowers the board to determine the appropriateness of bargaining units. The amendment maintains the board's jurisprudence over determining whether it is indeed appropriate to combine full- and part-time employees into a single bargaining unit for collective bargaining.
This would provide the board with an opportunity to consider all of the facts of the particular case and to determine if there is a community of interests that exists between the two groups of employees. As a result, it would give the freedom to employees to be part of a bargaining unit that they wished to be involved in.
I spoke to this section the other day and I think most of the comments I made at that time would pertain to this section as well, so I will conclude my remarks. We just want to make sure that the community of interests be considered and that all individuals have the opportunity to join a union of their choice or not to join a union, if that is their wish.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Witmer. Any further comments? All those in favour of Ms Witmer's motion please indicate. Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Offer: I have a motion I would like to move. I move that subsections 6(2.2) to (2.4) of the act, as set out in subsection 7(1) of bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Combining full-time and part-time units
"(2.2) The board shall combine the bargaining units for full-time and for part-time employees into one bargaining unit only if a representation vote is taken and more than 50% of the ballots in each of the separate bargaining units are cast in favour of the trade union.
"Non-application
"(2.3) Subsections (2.1) and (2.2) do not apply with respect to bargaining units of employees described in subsection (3) or bargaining units in the construction industry."
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. I assume you want to speak to the motion.
Mr Offer: I very much do wish to speak to this motion. To begin, I would address just very briefly comments to the second part of my motion, subsection (2.3), where it states, "Subsections (2.1) and (2.2) do not apply with respect to bargaining units of employees described in subsection (3) or bargaining units in the construction industry." That is very much in keeping with the current legislation.
But I do want to talk at some length on (2.2). This is the point I have alluded to over and over again. To fully understand why I've made this motion, in my opinion one has to have regard to the current legislation, secondly, to Bill 40, and thirdly, to the amendment I have moved to the bill.
Firstly, with respect to the legislation that is currently in force, the Ontario Labour Relations Act, there has been much said. I won't go on with respect to this issue, but it has been the decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board that where there is an application made by part-time and full-time units for combination, the board has, I believe, consistently ordered that such a combination will not take place. The reason they have given is that the full-time and part-time workers in each unit do not share what has been commonly referred to as a community of interests. That, I believe, is a series of decisions which have grown over time, many of which were steeped in a workplace of years ago and not reflective of the new workplace. I've spoken expressing my concerns over continuing and maintaining the necessary exclusion as a result of a community of interests of the combination of full-time and part-time workers.
That is the current legislation. In essence, full-time and part-time workers will not be combined even if they want, because there is a body of decision which has stated that it is inappropriate because they do not share a community of interests.
We have Bill 40. To me, the significant part within Bill 40 states that the board can combine part-time and full-time workers if 55% of the combination of workers are in agreement for combination. In other words, if the total amount of workers--that includes the combination of full-time and part-time workers--exceeds 55% or is at least equal to 55%, then the board can order the combination of part-time and full-time workers.
I've spoken about this because I believe fundamentally this is a very principled parting of the minds in this matter. Why do I say this? I say this because the members of this committee will know that I have brought forward this scenario often enough: If there is a workforce of 100 workers, of which 55 are full-time and 45 are part-time, and there is a vote and all of the 55 full-time workers vote in favour of combination and all of the 45 part-time workers say no to combination, then this bill says, "You're combined."
If that is not the potential operation of this bill in this matter, then let me hear it right now from ministry officials or from the parliamentary assistant, because I have brought this forward time and time again and it has never been refuted. In fact, it has been stated that yes, this is something that can happen.
1600
Ms Murdock: Do you want me to answer that right now?
Mr Offer: Yes, sure.
Ms Murdock: A motion that we are bringing forward will significantly change your concerns, I think, certainly in those workplaces where there is already a bargaining unit in place for either part-time or full-time workers. In a scenario, for instance, that you have mentioned where it would be a brand-new workplace, you're correct: It would start from scratch. Fifty-five per cent of the members would be signed, either part-time or full-time, and then the board would have to make a decision as to the validity of the cards and so on. Then if it was 55% or more, they would be automatically certified, and if it was under, there would be a secret ballot vote.
Mr Offer: Where is the government motion to the bill that would address the concern I have with respect to the existing units?
Ms Murdock: It is subsection 7(1) of the bill, subsection 6(2.5) of the act, and it would be the next one coming up.
Mr Offer: This is an important area because it says that "the board may determine that separate bargaining units for full-time and for part-time employees are appropriate if the trade union applying for certification is already the bargaining agent for either the full-time or the part-time employees."
Ms Murdock: That's right.
Mr Offer: That doesn't address my concerns. Let it be understood right away that that does not address my concerns whatsoever.
Ms Murdock: With respect, I would say that it certainly addresses one of your scenarios that you mentioned during the hearings. In your case, for example, where you have 100 employees--55 full-time, 45 part-time--the likelihood of all 55 agreeing to become union members and the likelihood of all 45 saying no is slim, to say the least; you're going to have a mix. But we think that the motion we're going to be speaking to later covers those situations where part-timers could be basically swept in, from the scenarios that you have mentioned, where their views would not hold any weight, in a situation where a bargaining unit already exists at the workplace. Actually, it was you who induced us to work on this motion, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: I think that was a compliment, but I'll wait to see the actual explanation of the--
The Chair: I must say, to have induced a parliamentary assistant is a major accomplishment.
Mr Offer: I will take a look and see how they wish to explain this, because I do not see that amendment as having met my concern. However, I recognize we are not dealing with the government's motion right now; we're dealing with the motion I have made. And what have we heard so far? We have now heard, through the parliamentary assistant, that the scenario I have painted is possible.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Highly unlikely, but possible.
Mr Offer: Government members say "highly unlikely." Well, we then go into the different mathematical computations. What number is it that will move government members to say that part-time workers as well as full-time workers in this province should have equal say when it comes to combining units?
I don't believe that to say that this is an unlikely scenario is a sufficient response, because we can go through a variety of numbers; we can go through a variety of percentages. That's not the issue. The issue is principle. If there is an application for combination of part-time workers with full-time workers, I say let that proceed, but let it only be successful if we have a majority in each unit saying yes.
Let us not go into the different numbers the government tries to bring forward. To me it does not matter how many workers comprise a part-time unit nor how many in the full-time sector, nor does it matter who is the driving force. You're always assuming it's the full-time workers' unit that's going to be the driving force. In fact, I think what might very well happen as the workplace seems to evolve is that the part-time workers will be the driving force. They may be the unit for which there are more employees. They may be the unit of workers for which there is growth.
So the question is, should we in essence be concerned as to who is the driving force, full-time or part-time? I don't believe we should. Should we in this legislation or in this Legislature be concerned as to whether there is a community of interest? I think we can make the argument that we shouldn't be. It should be up to the workers in the workplace to make that decision. They are the ones--
Interjection.
Mr Offer: Pardon me? I didn't hear the comment.
They are the ones who should be making that decision. It shouldn't be some dictate from the Ministry of Labour, as approved by some Legislature in some year in the province of Ontario.
Workplaces change. People have, in terms of the workers, their own opinions as to whether they have the same community of interest. I am saying that if a worker or unit of workers of either the part-time or the full-time sector wishes to combine, then legislation should be in place to allow them to follow a certain process.
This legislation is significantly and fundamentally deficient because, in order to give true credence to their choices, it must be based on a democratic vote, of which a majority carries. Everybody will understand that. There isn't a person who would deny that's not the way to go. For a full-time workers' unit to be combined with a part-time workers' unit when you do not have a majority in each unit saying yes, flies in the face of democratic choices in this land. Bill 40 rips that apart.
I have said publicly and privately that there are examples where the rights of workers have been taken away in this legislation. I know the government members say, "Oh, it's another opposition member hysterically criticizing government." Well, this is an example. If there is a member in this Legislature and in this room who can show me how this doesn't take away from the rights of individuals, then let him or her say that right now, because it does. And if they can't say that, then don't criticize anybody who says it does, because it does take away the rights of an individual to choose whether to be combined or not to be.
1610
Parliamentary assistant, you must free Mr Hope from the shackles of this gag order. I can see that Mr Hope is champing at the microphone wishing to be part, but there must be some dictate from higher on that says to Mr Hope, "No matter what is said, how right it is or how much you want to be part of this debate, you must step back." Oh, I see that Mr Hope is now looking at Mr Huget, because they both wish. They have both been told in no uncertain terms, "No matter what the debate is, when you are moved to speak, just remove yourself from the floor."
It is unfortunate, because we are talking about a very serious piece of legislation. We are talking about an area in our economy where a lot of people are directing their attention--that is, the service sector. I can't help but feel that this full-time and part-time employee combination area is directed primarily at the service sector. I know it can be found in the manufacturing area, but I can't help but feel that the true impetus behind this is that the service sector is now moving from full-time to part-time and we want to make certain we can gather in all the employees. I've said it.
I am saying, if you want to combine full-time and part-time workers in this province and you want to do more than just say you're giving rights--because you're not; you're taking away rights--then you will agree with my amendment. It is not a magical piece. All it does is say that before full-time and part-time workers in this province can be combined into one unit, each of the units must say yes by a majority vote. There is nothing wrong about that. It is democratic. It is majority rule.
I am saying if that be the wish of the workers of any one particular workplace, so be it. Let them make the decision. Let them decide whether there is a community of interest. It should not be up to the current Minister of Labour to say, "I know that every part-time and full-time worker in any workplace has the same interests." That is arrogant, it is wrong, it is unprincipled, it flies in the face of freedom of choice and it flies in the face of democracy.
If a decision like that were made which affected you, you would be standing and shouting from the highest precipice, indicating how wrong that is. If you were dragged into an organization of which you did not want to be a part, you would be standing up and saying: "Where are my rights? I have a say and I am part of a group." If that group says yes by a majority, then I understand that, but if they don't and you're still dragged in, you would, with right, say that is wrong. You would be right to criticize anyone who makes that decision, because that's taking away your choice. So I speak to this issue.
I am happy that the parliamentary assistant has indicated there is some sort of government motion. I have taken a look at it. It certainly isn't the one that would address these concerns. My issue is an issue of choice; it's an issue of majority; it's an issue of democracy; it's an issue of giving to workers in this province the right to choose.
If you do not agree with this amendment, if you do maintain that which is now in Bill 40, then you are taking away the rights of workers in this province, both part-time and full-time, whenever there is an application for a combination. Make no mistake about it. You have no argument; you have no defence; you have nothing you can say.
Ms Murdock: Yes, we do.
Mr Offer: The parliamentary assistant says, "Yes, you do." I would like to see and hear--
Ms Murdock: First of all, this is not a section--I know you keep saying it's a section on choice, but it really isn't, because in the end, the board will determine what is the appropriate bargaining unit. The other thing, as I listen to the comments that you've made, is that if we follow your scenario to the end and say that this hypothetically passed, then that would mean that the board, in the future, would have to look at classifications of workers in almost every workplace.
The board, when it makes its decision as to what constitutes a community of interests, even under the amendments to Bill 40 it'll still be making a determination of whether the community of interests is the same. So the choice that you're talking about in joining the union in the first place is not at issue under this section. I know we disagree fundamentally on that, and I know there's a basic philosophical difference in seeing a difference between part-time and full-time workers and their community of interests, so I don't think there will ever be any meeting of the minds in that particular area, but to say that this is depriving workers of choice is, I think, totally false.
Mr Offer: This is exactly where we differ in our positions. I think the parliamentary assistant indicated that I am holding on to some sort of a community-of-interests argument. I don't know how many times one can say this, but I'm not. I'm just saying that if workers themselves believe there are different interests part-time to full-time, if they make the decision, I think that's right, just as, if workers decide they have the same interests, I think that's right.
To me the driving issue is the decision by workers in this province. I think it's wrong for a government to say that in all cases--and it is saying that in this legislation--there are the same interests between full-time and part-time workers. I think that is as wrong as saying that there are never the same interests; I believe that to be equally wrong.
Maybe it's because the answer is just so much in front of you that it's so difficult to see. The issue is up to the workers. What is the problem here? Why can't the government see, in this legislation, that the decision to combine, the decision to determine whether there are similar or dissimilar interests, should be up to the workers in the workplace? If you were in the workforce, wouldn't you want that decision? Wouldn't you want to be making that decision?
1620
What would you say if the government said, "There is always a difference, a dissimilarity of interests, to you as workers, part-time or full-time, in a workforce"? You would probably be on the front steps of Queen's Park, 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 strong, saying: "How in the world could a government ever say that in all circumstances between part-time and full-time workers there is always a dissimilarity of interests? How arrogant a government could that be, to make that decision?" And you would be right.
All I'm saying is that if it is wrong for the government, any government, to say in all cases there is a dissimilarity of interests between full-time and part-time workers, it is equally wrong for a government to say that in all instances there is a similarity of interests, full-time to part-time.
I just can't understand for the life of me why a government would be opposed to allowing workers in the workplace to make these decisions. I just do not understand why they would not only not allow them to make the decision but they take away rights as they promote their position. It is just incomprehensible to me, and maybe it's me, but I've looked at this bill up and down. I've discussed this part dealing with the part-time and full-time workers. Members here have heard me and I think most members have asked similar questions on the issue of part-time and full-time workers. The interesting point is that the answer, no matter who poses the question and to whom, is always the same: Bill 40 takes away the rights of part-time and/or full-time workers in a combination application. It does take away rights of workers.
My amendment is seeking to insert that in the void, workers' rights, workers' choice, workers' freedom to decide what is or is not in their best interests--why are we so afraid of a vote at which the majority rules? I'm not saying that if there are 50 in the part-time sector you have to have 26 to say yes. I'm saying the majority of the votes cast. If there happens to be less than 100% of the workers casting a vote, let the majority of those who cast a vote rule.
But no, and I just cannot believe, I cannot understand, that a government would allow this to happen, that a government, in the service sector--and this is my own feeling, that this section is really devoted to the service sector, and that is where a lot of people are starting to cast their attention--is saying no to this.
Mrs Witmer: I would like to support the amendment, which is intended to prevent the combining of full- and part-time employees into a single bargaining unit unless a vote of more than 50% of the ballots in each of the separate bargaining units is cast in favour of the trade union. I don't know what possible objection there could be to supporting this amendment, because it does allow each individual in each bargaining unit the opportunity to make a free choice.
What the government is suggesting is that at the present time a union could submerge the part-time group's interests under the weight of the full-time majority. That's my concern. The interests of the part-time groups are being totally overlooked. It almost appears that the government's proposal is a scheme to facilitate certification rather than to protect the wishes of the full- and part-time employees. I believe the wishes and interests of all those employees need to be protected.
I have the impression that this legislation and this section really are more concerned with the facilitating of unionization, particularly as it impacts on the retail, service and financial sectors, where we do have many non-unionized, part-time workers.
I'm concerned that if the government does not support this amendment, which would allow for a vote of at least 50% in each bargaining unit in favour of the trade union, we could have a scenario where we would have 50 employees: 30 full-time, 20 part-time. If 28 of the full-time employees vote to join the union and none of the 20 part-timers vote to do so, the part-time employees would still be represented by the union, even though they are unanimously opposed, even though not one of the 20 part-time workers supported the union.
To me that is wrong. Where is the freedom of choice? What about the democratic choices for people? We talk about democracy, we talk about individual rights and freedoms, but what the government is proposing here under Bill 40 totally overlooks the opportunity for the individual to make a free and democratic choice. I'm very concerned, and if the government is truly concerned about democracy and freedom of choice, I would urge it to support this amendment. I would urge it to make sure that the part-time employees' interests are not submerged under the weight of the full-time majority.
I'm very concerned that we're not taking into consideration, under the government proposal, the fact that part-time employees are often employed on a short-term or very casual basis. Oftentimes their jobs are transitional, and you have full-time employees with totally different interests. Many of them are interested in pursuing a long-time career. These two groups of employees have very distinct interests. If these two employee groups wish to be represented as individual bargaining units, I believe they should be entitled to do so and that their interests need to be addressed separately.
I'm concerned that if you combine bargaining units into a single bargaining unit under which one group has had no say whatsoever, you could find one group being forced to go into a strike over an issue which really does not apply to it, but again, they have no freedom of choice and they would be forced to do so.
So I would certainly strongly support this amendment. I believe it's absolutely essential that all individuals have the opportunity, within a bargaining unit, to make a free choice as to whether or not they want to be represented in a combined, single bargaining unit. I just can't believe that the government couldn't support this particular amendment.
The Chair: Thank you. All those in favour--
Mr Offer: Recorded vote.
The Chair: --of Mr Offer's motion, please raise your hand and keep it raised until your name is called.
AyesB3
Offer, Turnbull, Witmer.
NaysB5
Hope, Huget, Klopp, Murdock (Sudbury), Ward (Brantford).
The Chair: Thank you. The motion is defeated.
Ms Murdock moves that section 6 of the act, as amended by subsection 7(1) of the bill, be further amended by adding the following subsection:
"Existing bargaining unit
"(2.5) Despite subsections (2.1) and (2.2), the board may determine that separate bargaining units for full-time and for part-time employees are appropriate if the trade union applying for certification is already the bargaining agent for either the full-time or part-time employees."
1630
Ms Murdock: During the hearings we heard much concern for situations whereby a bargaining unit that was in place could conceivably ask for a combination of the units for, say, a part-time unit or whichever the non-represented unit was, never having any indication in any way of its desire to join and that it could conceivably happen, as we heard during the hearings, that it could be swept in without any sign of consent.
As a consequence we bring forward this motion, which basically means that it will allow more flexibility, and certainly representation, for the non-represented unit or a group of employees to join or give an indication of their desire to join. It is a legal technique, I guess you could say, to provide an exception. I think too it would allow the board to look at the collective bargaining patterns that have already developed. We think this has countered some of the arguments that were raised during the hearings and also gives the non-represented units an opportunity to express their own desires.
Mr Offer: I have a question, if I might, to the parliamentary assistant or to Ministry of Labour staff. How does this deal with the issues we've just brought forward?
Ms Murdock: You yourself raised the issue a number of times--we'll use part-time and full-time--where full-timers are represented by a bargaining agent and part-timers are not. That's pretty standard, actually, in most instances at the present time. Conceivably, you could have 55% of the bargaining unit indicating that they wanted the part-timers in when the part-timers could conceivably never have even one vote towards that desire.
This section will change that in that it will require that where a bargaining unit exists in a workplace and part-timers are not represented, the part-time staff will have to go through the card process and so on. It will require the board to test for majority support to combine the full- and part-timers. The union would then be required to show the part-time vote as separate in a situation where there is a representation from one of the groups.
Mr Offer: If I just might follow up, where is that?
Ms Murdock: What do you mean, "Where is that"?
Mr Offer: With the majority votes and things like that. The current bill goes from (2.1) to (2.4). This is an add-on; it is not an amendment to the existing legislation.
Ms Murdock: That's right.
Mr Offer: It says here, "Despite subsections (2.1) and (2.2), the board may determine"--the first words are "the board"--"that separate bargaining units for full-time and for part-time employees are appropriate if the trade union applying for certification"--so already we're excluding the situation where there are existing certified units.
Ms Murdock: Excluding?
Mr Offer: Yes. It says "if the trade union applying for certification is already the bargaining agent for either the full-time or part-time employees." It's saying that if the union applying for certification is already the agent for one or the other, then the board may determine that separate bargaining units for full-time and part-time units are appropriate. What are the factors that the board takes into account?
Ms Murdock: There are enough precedents.
Mr Offer: I cannot disagree more. There is no precedent, because the precedent under which the board has made previous decisions is based on a preamble which the government has repealed. It has inserted a purpose clause by which there has not one single decision made. I disagree vehemently.
Ms Murdock: The criterion used in this instance would be that the unrepresented people who are being requested would still sign cards. You would go through a regular organizing situation. You would still sign cards. You would have to indicate that the unrepresented group would have the requirements as per the other sections of the legislation, which would be the 55%. I know I said a majority; I stand corrected. Anything from 40% to the 55% would require a mandatory vote, between 40% and 55%. It would still go through that same process, but that's only in a situation where there is already a represented unit there and that union was applying for representation of the part-time--I'm using part-time as an example--was applying for representation of the unrepresented group.
Mr Jerry Kovacs: If I may speak to it, Mr Offer, language in the proposed additional subsection contained in the motion, (2.5), has language that should, if you read it carefully, trigger the reader to review the existing (2.2) in Bill 40. Subsection (2.2) in Bill 40 says, "The board shall determine that separate bargaining units for full-time and part-time employees are appropriate if it is satisfied that less than 55 per cent of the" workers across the combined unit are members of the trade union applicant.
As Ms Murdock indicated, the point of this provision is to ensure that where the trade union applicant already represents one or the other of full- or part-time employees in a unit, it can't apply to the board and in its application name as an appropriate bargaining unit the combined full- and part-time, all-employee unit and, having done that, simply submit membership cards of members whom it already represents. The effect of this? If you look to subsection (2.5), the wording of (2.5), as proposed, says, "The board may determine that separate bargaining units for full-time and for part-time employees are appropriate." That means that, in accordance with the (2.2) rules, where separate bargaining units are appropriate the board may conduct representation testing in each of the separate categories.
The result is that on an application in the scenario that I just described the board is free to test among the category of employees whom the union doesn't yet represent. It wouldn't be sufficient to submit the cards for the members whom you already represent, for whom you already have a collective agreement. The board would be free to say that it's necessary to test for membership support in the other category of employees.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Do you understand it?
Mr Offer: I don't understand. I'm glad Mr Ward asked if I understand that amendment. I absolutely do not understand this at all. I recognize membership testing. I think I understand when it says the board "may" do something. It doesn't mean that they must, but it does mean that they may. I would like anybody to read (2.1) and (2.2) and now (2.5), which have, at least twice, the word "despite." Subsection (2.2) starts out, "Despite subsection (2.1)," and (2.5) starts out, "Despite sections (2.1) and (2.2)." It talks about "the board may determine." It talks about some representation testing.
I would like every worker in this province to read (2.1), (2.2) and (2.5) on one side and read my motion that was defeated on the other and says that: "If you have the units and you have a majority on both sides and they say yes, then you're combined. If you don't have it, then they can't be combined," and ask people which one they think protects their rights.
1640
The Chair: Are you proposing a referendum?
Mr Offer: I'm on the Yes side. I'm glad, actually, the Chair brought forward the referendum, not that I'm going to--
Interjections.
Mr Offer: What is the principle? I'm not going to speak about Yes or No. I'm going to speak about the principle of people having a right to cast a vote. Everybody in this country, no matter how they stand on this issue--Yes or No or they don't know or they don't want to know or they don't care--I will tell you something: One thing they do know is they have the right on October 26 to go and cast a vote. That they do know. That they understand. That we understand. There's nothing we are going to be able to say that is going to convince them which way to cast their vote. All I think we can say is: "You have that right. Exercise it." All we are saying with respect to full-time and part-time workers is, give them the rights.
This bill and this subsection are fundamentally deficient in that though they attempt to address some of the matters, they don't do what people want. It doesn't give them the right to say yes or no.
Mr Kovacs: I think it's important to reiterate Ms Murdock's point in respect of the current law and the maintenance of that law in respect of appropriateness of bargaining units. The act mandates the labour board to determine appropriateness of bargaining units. It does not provide employees who are applying for a trade union to represent them to choose their bargaining unit.
I would attempt to explain that state of the law by giving you the example of an applicant trade union that applies for certification to represent a bargaining unit of line workers in a manufacturing plant plus shippers in the warehousing part of the operation, so a bargaining unit of both line workers and shippers. If it turns out that the trade union application has cards only from one of those categories or classifications of persons, then, under your scenario, it seems to me you suggest that the employees would have a right to vote on what the appropriate bargaining unit is.
The law, as represented in the act and in the jurisprudence of the board, is that it's for the labour board to determine on other grounds than the wishes of the employees; rather, it's on legal grounds of appropriateness that the bargaining unit is determined.
The provisions in respect of full-time and part-time employees try to correct a line of Ontario Labour Relations Board jurisprudence that's at variance with the jurisprudence of every other jurisdiction in the country. Every other jurisdiction in the country finds that full-time and part-time employees together form part of an appropriate bargaining unit. I think the problem with your suggestion is that you suggest that categories within an appropriate bargaining unit should have a right to elect or to choose appropriateness, and that's at odds with the Labour Relations Act as it stands and as it will continue to stand in respect of appropriateness of bargaining units.
Mr Offer: But on the same point, the current decision by the board dealing with part-time and full-time workers is that the board states there is a different community of interest and as such the combination of part-time and full-time units cannot take place. This bill takes that away. It says we are no longer going to have that artificial distinction between full-time and part-time workers based on community of interest.
Thank goodness for Hansard. I don't know how many times I've said it: I agree with that. I agree that the artificial distinction of community of interest is from another day, but there is a "but," and it is that just because you do away with it doesn't mean to say that in all cases, in every workplace, there is no difference or dissimilarity of interest. That's what this bill is saying, and I'm saying that's equally wrong.
You're going from one side way over to the other. What is the problem in letting the workers of the workplace decide? I can understand there being some discretion left to the board to decide appropriateness, but why would you go from one side, which says in no case is there a similarity of interest between part-time and full-time workers--which is now, if not in the act, certainly by board decision--to the other side, way over on the other side, which says in all cases there is a similarity of interest?
How the government can't allow workers of this province to make that decision as to what is and is not in their interest is absolutely incredible to me. Subsection (2.5) is just another layer on an onion that when you peel it away has the same impact: Workers' rights are taken away.
Members of the government think, "Well, I'm never going to have to really defend that." You are going to have to defend it. You're going to have to defend it when the first combination application takes place and somebody asks, "Well, Jeez, you know, how come I got swept into this unit and I didn't have any say in it?" If they ask me the question, I'll tell them the answer. If they ask you the question, you're going to have to give them the answer, and that is that you voted in favour of it. You voted in favour of taking away the rights of a worker to decide.
The parliamentary assistant shakes her head. To me it doesn't matter whether one shakes her head in the affirmative or negative. All I do is say, "Read the bill." Read the bill and make your decision. Read the bill, and read what was put forward as an amendment, which was voted down by the government. That's all I say, and make your decision; clear, clear choices.
You want to talk about this. You want to talk about this area. I haven't really dealt with it in the type of particularity that I wanted to because I know that we're under an eight-day closure motion. We started Wednesday; Thursday, Monday and now it's Thursday, so this is half of the days. So we will be close to four days now of a very complicated piece of legislation. Not only is it complicated, but the government brings forward amendments, I must say, which themselves should be the subject matter of discussion, which themselves should be the subject matter of public hearings. I tell you that now.
Members laugh, but I'll tell you something: When you bring forward that new purpose clause and say that you didn't want to listen and you don't have any discussion as to what the impact of that is, you're shutting the door. As technical as these amendments are, you can't just bring in a cosmetic and very little substance. You cannot bring those forward and say, "Well, we're just going to deal with it." You're going to deal with these amendments, and you know what's going to happen. Let it rest on your shoulders.
1650
I can tell you that we're now finishing almost four days of just eight days of clause-by-clause. I only ask you to take a look at what has happened in the standing committee on administration of justice on the advocacy bills. You will eventually, under your closure motion--I think the closure motion permits this--be passing amendments to this bill that the members of this committee have not heard of. It is a strict dereliction of duty and that is the essence of what a closure motion does; eight days and now you're going to be dealing with motions and passing motions into law which you have not even read, let alone understood. I don't mean that in a critical sense; I'm saying "understood" in terms of their impact from different areas of the public.
So if you think subsection 6(2.5) somehow fills the void of workers' rights, you are absolutely wrong and we're probably going to have a vote on this and probably it's going to pass because the members of the government side will just lift up their arms and say, "And it shall be."
The Vice-Chair: Further discussion?
Mrs Witmer: I will not be supporting this government motion and I believe that this section should be struck out. I think the amendment that we just dealt with certainly did respond better to the concern of making sure that individuals do have the right to be represented by the union of their choice, so we will certainly be voting against this at the present time.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I'm going to be very, very brief because I'm not going to take too much time so we can get on with the other amendments. I think the key thing that Mr Offer has said several times in his responses to the bill is that the workers in the workplace make the decision. I think this is exactly what that is doing.
I think the other issue is that we keep wanting to separate workers and make it look as though part-time workers would not desire or want to have the same type of benefits or similar benefits that full-time workers have been able to get. I have a real problem with that because I've never run across anyone who had to work part-time who wouldn't want to have the same kind of benefits of someone in another bargaining unit or similar bargaining unit who had decent benefits. That's all I have to say.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Offer, briefly.
Mr Offer: There are two points which you brought forward, and one was the right of a worker to choose. All I would do is, as I deal with the second point, invite you to show me where that is with respect to this section that we are talking about. You will be able to see it in my amendment. I would have expected you to have supported the amendment that I brought forward which said that the board shall combine the bargaining units for full-time and part-time employees into one unit only if a representation vote is taken and more than 50% of the ballots cast in each of the separate bargaining units are cast in favour of the trade union. That does give workers the right to choose. You spoke in favour of my amendment.
Now to deal with the other issue.
Mr Hayes: A point, Mr Chair: I don't want to prolong this, but I don't want Mr Offer to insinuate that I spoke in favour of his resolution. I'm talking about the people in the workplace, and your resolution would actually separate those people and that's what's happening. The government motion would give all the people in the workplace a democratic right to express what unit they would choose to belong to, if they want a union or if they don't want a union.
Mr Offer: I couldn't disagree with you more. I know that you're here, but I want you to listen to what I'm saying and have been saying from day one. I am not opposed to full-time and part-time workers in any unit being combined. I do believe that the question as to whether they should or should not be combined is one which should be left to the workers. Let me repeat: The question as to whether they should or should not be combined is one that should be left to the workers. My amendment does that. The government bill does not do that. We have heard discussion from the parliamentary assistant and ministry officials which verifies that.
The question you are bringing forward is extremely important to me. It is saying to me that if there is a similarity of interests in the workforce between part-time and full-time workers, I don't want you to make that decision and I don't want that decision to be made by the Minister of Labour. I want that decision to be made by the workers in that workplace. The government's Bill 40 doesn't allow that; my amendment does.
I know it sounds like you're breaking party lines on this point, and you are.
Mr Hayes: You don't have to point. You're not on television.
Mr Offer: The point is, it doesn't matter to me whether it's on television or not. This is a matter which I think should be on TV. I think there are a lot of people outside of this place who would like to see this debate. I still stand critical of the government when last week it voted down the motion that would move this committee hearing to the Amethyst Room, for which the taxpayers have paid, which is in essence a committee room in a television studio, so that the people of this province could hear these points being made. I would think it's very important.
I am most concerned, whether it is televised or not, that workers in this province be given a right to make the decision on their own. Bill 40 takes that away. They don't get that right. It's left to the board. You shake your head. The parliamentary assistant and ministry staff have confirmed this.
It is crucial that you understand what the position is. I believe it is crucial for members of this committee to be crystal clear as to my position on this. That is, I think the whole community-of-interest distinction is one of another day, a day that has passed, but I do believe there still may very well be examples where workers in one workplace do not want part-time and full-time to be thought of as having the same interests. I believe they should be given the opportunity to make that decision. It shouldn't be a bunch of MPPs sitting in some committee room at Queen's Park who make that decision; it should be the workers in the workplace.
The question is, are the government members in favour of the employees, the workers of this province, making their choice themselves or not. If you support the changes in Bill 40, it is clear that you do not support the right of workers to make that choice.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Quite clearly, I believe the previous amendment was more appropriate than this. It is also quite apparent to me that the government couldn't care less about simple democratic principles. We've spoken about this at length, and given the fact that there are an awful lot of amendments that still have to be made, I propose that the question now be put.
The Vice-Chair: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion be now put? Agreed.
All those in favour of Ms Murdock's amendment, please indicate. Opposed? Carried.
1700
Mrs Witmer: I move that subsection 7(2) of the bill be struck out.
The intent of this particular amendment is to maintain the exclusion for professionals. The reason for the original exclusion was the perceived inconsistency between a professional's obligation to his or her clients and the right to strike. It was also thought that the right to bargain collectively is not critical to those individuals, because they are governed by their own specific professional regulatory bodies. I would say at this time that the rationale for the original exclusion continues and is very important in our deliberations.
I'm concerned that if we go ahead as the government has proposed under Bill 40, professionals would be potentially in a conflict-of-interest situation between their professional responsibilities and the responsibilities and accountabilities that could be demanded by them by virtue of belonging to a trade union.
We have had concern expressed, particularly by children's aid societies. These societies are very concerned that their professional staff will be impeded in carrying out their professional duties under the Child and Family Services Act.
As you know, most children's aid societies have legal counsel on staff to handle court-related requirements dictated by the Child and Family Services Act. These lawyers are specialists in child welfare-related legislation, and they are critical to the societies' ability to discharge properly their legal obligations under the Child and Family Services Act.
If you take a look at the majority of small or medium-sized societies, their one or two legal staff complement would simply become part of an existing bargaining unit. So CASs, without the necessary in-house counsel during a strike--but they would be required to meet their obligations under the Child and Family Services Act--would be put in a position where they must choose between violating the Labour Relations Act by contracting out the work, or discharging their court-related responsibilities to children. Those are the problems, then, that would be faced by these small or medium-sized societies, that position of being put into that dilemma.
You could have similar problems arising in the case of larger societies. Larger societies employ psychologists and other specialists to provide in-house assessments of children who are receiving CAS services. Problems are likely to arise in a strike situation when the union is asked to consent to a society's estimated need for the provision of mandatory services and the number of replacement workers required to address these needs. The union can dispute the CAS's estimates.
As you can see, children in the care of children's aid societies are put in jeopardy if the exclusion for professionals is not maintained, and the concerns that I have shared with you are the concerns that have been brought forward by the children's aid societies. They are concerned about the impact of Bill 40 on their ability to discharge their professional duties. They do believe they will be impeded in carrying out their professional duties under the Child and Family Services Act, and I would encourage the government to support the removal of subsection 7(2) of the bill.
The Vice-Chair: Further discussion?
Mr Offer: I'd like to speak to this matter. I think this is the beginning of what is going to be a very complicated area. Speaking to the issue of exclusion under the act and matters of this kind, I am very concerned with the impact that this might have with respect to children's aid society workers, children, and I know that down the line in the legislation there are other areas which I believe have a very detrimental effect on others being able to carry out their responsibilities which are mandated to them by other pieces of legislation.
I'm not going to speak at length on this particular section because I do have something to say with respect to the issue of subsection 6(4)--and I believe that's in keeping with the bill--and who are the members of professions, just to indicate that I too am extremely concerned with the legislation as it has been outlined.
Ms Murdock: Very briefly, just a correction on something Mrs Witmer said that was in relation to the contracting out of work would not be allowed for a lawyer, say, in a local children's aid office. That is not correct; they would. In fact, contracting out is allowed under these amendments in any situation, so they would be able to contract out to another lawyer to go and represent a child.
Having said that, later on in the amendments you get into subsection 73.2(15), which would allow you to designate different specified workers within a small setting, which point was very well made by the children's aid societies when they were here for the hearings: They would be able to designate certain personnel. Obviously, if you're in a small operation and there's only one lawyer there, then that person would be designated, or could very well be designated with agreement from the employer and the employee representatives, so I just wanted that correction.
The other thing I should point out here is that professional legislation would take precedence over this section, and so that if there was, as was intimated, a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest, the professional legislation would hold, rather than the amendments to the Labour Relations Act.
Having said all of that, we will not be supporting this section, and when we do get to this section, there are still ongoing conversations with some of the professions, and we will be asking to defer matters related to this section until a later time.
Mr Offer: There are a couple of things. You've indicated that there are some ongoing discussions taking place with professional associations, firstly, and you're going to be asking for certain sections to be deferred pending the outcome of those discussions. I hope that you would, at this point in time, inform us as to what those associations are, what sections are going to be deferred, the reason why they're going to be deferred, what is the time period, and how you are going to bring those sections back in. Remember, just as we are working under time closure, so are you now, and you don't have very much time to discuss those particular areas.
Lastly, for a matter of interest on my part, why is it that a professional organization's legislation takes precedence over the Labour Relations Act?
Ms Murdock: Why is it?
Mr Offer: Yes; you said that.
Ms Murdock: For instance, you mean the requirements under the Law Society of Upper Canada over the OLRA.
Mr Offer: It's the first one that came to mind.
Ms Murdock: Me too. The ethical requirements, for instance, under the law society, would hold precedence, and I presume that everyone working under a piece of legislation would be ethical, but that's not always the case, unfortunately. But your requirements and your professional duties, regardless of what profession you're in--engineering or whatever--would hold precedence over and above giving up some duties under the Labour Relations Act.
I don't know whether there's a law that says that. I would have to look.
Mr Offer: You've already stated it on the record.
Ms Murdock: I'll ask my colleague.
Mr Offer: You've put it on the record.
Mr Klopp: Oh, come on, now.
Mr Offer: Mr Klopp says, "Oh, come on, now."
1710
Ms Murdock: There were a number of questions that Mr Offer asked and--in terms of the consultations, I should correct myself. We agreed we would defer this at the request of one particular group, the nurses' association, because, as you may note, we did not bring forth an amendment. We haven't got to that section yet, Mr Offer, at which point I will ask if we can defer that at that time. If you want to set a time frame as to when we will bring it forward, I suppose that can be discussed.
Mr Offer: So it's the Ontario Nurses' Association?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Offer: You're asking that this section be deferred or the section thereafter be--
Ms Murdock: Not this section; we're not there yet. That's why this is being a little--
The Vice-Chair: That's part of the problem, Mr Offer; we're not on that section at the moment. We're on another section.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, with the greatest respect, I'm ready to deal with that other section. It was the parliamentary assistant who first brought forward the fact that they were dealing with some other organizations, and I thought it was quite in order, since the parliamentary assistant brought that forward, that I would just ask what organizations. But now we know it's the ONA, I would also ask: Is there anybody else?
Ms Murdock: Not that I'm aware of, no. I have no knowledge of any other group. It was at the request of the nurses' association that we defer this if at all possible. I said to the ONA that I would be asking for a deferral. If you have objections to giving that deferral, then we have a difficulty.
Mr Offer: No, I have absolutely no objection. The only thing I would have appreciated was being informed that there was going to be a deferral request.
Mr Klopp: You can't stop people from phoning you, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: Pardon me? I didn't hear what Mr Klopp said.
Ms Murdock: Well, he hasn't got the floor; I have.
When I went through the amendments that were put forward, I noticed that Mrs Witmer had one and I spoke to her. I went through yours--they're not all in--but I had gone past that number and you did not have an amendment related to that so I didn't speak to you. If you had one, I would have spoken to you. I did speak to Mrs Witmer.
Mr Offer: My next question is: You had indicated that if there is a group or an organization which operates under another piece of legislation, that legislation would in fact be paramount--
Ms Murdock: I'll look that up, because that was my information. I will get some clarification to bring that in on Tuesday.
Mr Offer: Okay, and I will tell you why it's important. The first thing that came to mind was a series of submissions by--I think we'll recall, of course, one was the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. I think we also remember a very interesting submission made by the professional engineers of the province, and what they had indicated was that--
Ms Murdock: They're already covered under the present legislation.
Mr Offer: What they had indicated was that they operate under other pieces of legislation. For instance, the children's aid societies of course operate under a piece of legislation which says that they must act in the best interests of the child. They were concerned about Bill 40 and the replacement worker provisions because of the impact they would have.
I think, if my memory serves me correctly, it was either through their submission or certainly through some questions we had, that the impact of this bill and the replacement worker provision would in effect put them in contravention of their piece of legislation which says they must operate in the best interests of the child. Now if there is some--
Ms Murdock: Well, we're way ahead of ourselves, though, than this section.
Mr Offer: You see, I don't think I am, because I'm responding to your comments. There are people in this room who will remember that I didn't bring this up. You're the one who brought it up.
Mr Klopp: It's maybe unfortunate that Ms Murdock tries to help out as it goes with all the explanations, but if we're all feeling bad, why don't we get back on to where we are at? Let's carry on. You're thinking because she brought it up, you want to keep dragging it on.
Mr Offer: I certainly appreciate your assistance in this matter, but when the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour states that the concerns dealing with professionals are ones which are dealt with because they operate under their own piece of legislation, which is paramount to the Labour Relations Act--
Ms Murdock: It is.
Mr Offer: I have heard from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies that this is one of its major concerns. Thank you for your assistance, but it doesn't help the children's aid societies of this province. I would hope that maybe on Monday--
Ms Murdock: No, that's Thanksgiving.
Mr Offer: --on Tuesday that you would come back to the committee with information as to, when there is this situation, what is or is not paramount, if that is an issue, and we can then deal with this.
It's certainly a matter, I think, that we all thought of. Certainly through the law society we thought of what the impact would be of a solicitor being basically on strike and having the regulations of Bill 40 dictate one way and their own legislation dictate another. I think it's a very valid concern that the parliamentary assistant brought forward.
Ms Murdock: I already said I would do that.
Mr Offer: Thank you.
Mrs Witmer: I guess I'm concerned then that we would be voting on this amendment, since we don't have clarification as to what is intended. Is it intended that professionals would behave according to the professional regulatory body that they're part of, or would they have to choose between violating the Labour Relations Act or--
Ms Murdock: Most of the groups that came forward, such as the children's aid society group, the engineers group, all spoke to the essential services provision, which was their main concern, and unfortunately, the way things are going thus far, I don't think we'll even get to that.
But your section here, the reason I didn't speak at the very beginning in terms of reminding you of our conversation was that our intention is to maintain the exclusion of those professions that are listed, but with some discussion as to an inclusion of another profession, which is the subject of your--
Mrs Witmer: My amendment.
Ms Murdock: --alternate amendment.
Mrs Witmer: Yes.
Ms Murdock: I thought it was more to the point on your alternate amendment rather than this one. We are not going to agree to this amendment then in terms of striking it out, so I thought it was okay. That's the only reason I didn't address it earlier.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Just dealing with the reflective concerns of Offer, and he holds some legitimate concerns, I would ask the people from the ministry, dealing with the whole issue of whether they belong to a trade union or not, even after a certification, the employer still has the right to make them excluded personnel of a collective agreement. Is that not so, that the employer would still have that jurisdiction to exclude, say, for instance, one person of the legal profession and the children's aid from the bargaining unit under a collective agreement?
Mr Kovacs: The way the proposals read in the new LRA provisions respecting bargaining units for professionals is to say that a professions-only unit is deemed appropriate. So from the first instance, lawyers would be appropriate in a unit separate and apart from other employees. That is the rule created in these provision.
Ms Murdock: Engineers presently have that right, but no other professionals.
1720
Mr Hope: Just so I clearly understand what Mr Offer is trying to say, and maybe I'm wrong and Mr Offer would correct me--I know he will--it's that if you have a lawyer who is a part of the children's aid society acting within the employees employed by the local children's aid group, whatever community it is, and that lawyer is employed with a number of other employees who maybe want to belong to a trade union, that employer will have the right to exclude that lawyer from the bargaining unit under the exclusion clauses of a collective agreement.
Mr Offer: You're going to end up on our side, Randy.
Mrs Witmer: That's right.
Mr Hope: No. Listen, it's in there. I've dealt with this for 13 years.
Ms Murdock: Section 73.2 I think is what you're referring to, in the essential service provision.
Mr Hope: Right.
Ms Murdock: That's where I think you're saying that the employer would have that right. I think it's under subsection (9). I'm not sure, is it (9)?
Mr Hope: So the relative concerns that Mr Offer has are reflected at 73.2 versus reflected in this article, when the children's aids are being brought up.
Ms Murdock: But that's in 73.2.
Mr Hope: We're nowhere near it.
Ms Murdock: Right.
The Chair: Ms Witmer's motion, all in favour, please indicate. All opposed? Motion defeated.
Ms Witmer moves that subsection 6(4.2) of the act, as set out in subsection 7(2) of the bill, be struck out.
Go ahead, Ms Witmer. Is there any further discussion?
Mrs Witmer: Does Ms Murdock know where we're at?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mrs Witmer: This is the section referring to members of the professions.
The Chair: Subsection 6(4.2).
Mrs Witmer: Just for clarification, Mr Kormos, are you referring to the one where we talk about members of professions?
The Chair: I'm talking about your motion that subsection 6(4.2) of the act, as set out in subsection 7(2) of the bill, be struck out.
Mrs Witmer: Okay.
The Chair: Do you want to withdraw it or do you merely want to adopt the arguments you made with respect to the previous motion?
Mrs Witmer: No. The intent of this motion is to ensure that a professional bargaining unit cannot be consolidated with non-professional units. If the government intends to proceed with this particular amendment, it must ensure that professional bargaining units cannot be consolidated with non-professional units in order to avoid a conflict between professional responsibilities and union obligations, and yes, certainly some of the issues that I spoke to in the previous amendment would also pertain to this.
Ms Murdock: If I might, just very briefly, what subsection (4.2) does is it takes the engineers' provisions under the existing and it applies it to all professions, so particularly that would go hand in hand with subsection (4). When you remove the exclusion of professional groups, then it makes sense that they should also have the same provisions that engineers do.
The other thing too is that this section under Bill 40 will permit professionals to form a profession's specific bargaining unit, if they so choose, in order to respect any special community of interest they might have. However, it also permits inclusion in a broader unit if the professional employees prefer it. It gives them that choice. If they want to stay by themselves, they can, and if they want to move in with another unit they also can do that, remaining at the board's discretion, of course. We're not supporting having that struck out.
Mr Offer: Just on a point of clarification.
Ms Murdock: I always hate giving those explanations.
Mr Offer: No, I think the parliamentary assistant was extremely clear in this matter. Under Bill 40, although I know there may be one more, there are currently five professional groups: architecture, dentistry, engineering, land surveying and law.
I just want to be clear in my mind. It seems that (4.2) says that those employees described in sub (4.1)--and the employees in sub (4.1) are the five groups I've indicated--can be combined with other employees if the board is satisfied that a majority of the employees in (4.1) wish to be included in the bargaining unit. So if there is a unit of lawyers and a group of non-lawyers and there is a question as to combining those two groups, the board will combine if it is certain that a majority of the lawyers, in my example, want that.
I almost wondered why we can't give part-time workers in this province that same right.
Ms Murdock: The board "may," not "will" or "shall." The board "may."
Mr Offer: My goodness, look at that, "a majority of the employees." Shameful that we can't give the part-time and full-time workers in this province the same right.
Ms Murdock: You know, this is speaking out of both sides of your mouth here now, though, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: Just a matter of clarification, thank you.
Ms Murdock: Here you are on one hand stating that you have these great concerns over professionals having this right, and then in the next one you're saying, "They shouldn't have that," basically. You're having your cake and eating it too, or that's what you would like, and it's not going to happen. Why shouldn't they have that right?
Mr Offer: The parliamentary assistant would be right if I were speaking against (4.2) of the bill.
Ms Murdock: No, no, no.
Mr Offer: I am saying, I think that's right.
Ms Murdock: Yes, so do I.
Mr Offer: People should have the right to choose.
Ms Murdock: So I can expect your support on this subsection.
Mr Offer: This is nothing more than a continuation of the act. It's just included. I hope, and it would have been nice, that the principles which the government seeks to give to architects, dentists, engineers, land surveyors and lawyers could also be expanded to, dare I say, the part-time and full-time workers of this province, but I guess not.
Ms Murdock: You're right. You guess correctly.
Mr Offer: I guess the government won't do that.
Ms Murdock: I have a response for you, I believe, that might satisfy you.
Mr Offer: No, no. I am speaking in favour.
Ms Murdock: Yes. A group of professionals within an office--a perfect example is the CAS office where there is a lawyer who is performing a specific kind of professional duties--is not the same thing necessarily as a full-time/part-time situation where they're doing the same work. You're looking at full-time/part-time workers within a workplace who are doing exactly the same work only not for the same length of time, but in a professional capacity under this section you're not looking at the same work being done by that professional group. So it is not the same at all as what you're suggesting, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: The parliamentary assistant clearly indicates the parting of ways, because the parliamentary assistant refers to part-time and full-time workers as being distinguishable here--
Ms Murdock: As being what?
Mr Offer: As being a distinguishable area than what appears here because--
Ms Murdock: This has nothing to do with part-time/ full-time. This has everything to do with--
Mr Offer: You brought up the example.
Ms Murdock: You brought up the example, Mr Offer, not I.
Mr Offer: All I am saying is, you made the assertion that it's different in a CAS situation because there are lawyers in the CAS who are doing something different than the other workers, and that isn't the case for full-time and part-time workers.
Ms Murdock: Not necessarily.
Mr Offer: And I'm saying, why don't we let the full-time and part-time workers make that decision, as opposed to some people in a legislative committee at Queen's Park?
1730
Ms Murdock: The board makes the decision. I've made this point before. It's the board that makes the decision as to the composition of the units.
Mr Offer: I think it's shameful.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to move that we vote.
Mr Turnbull: Just a comment that I would make: This is very important legislation. All parties, while we disagree on the direction we should be going in, understand the significance of this. I think it would be more appropriate if we could be moving on more quickly on all of the clauses so we can get through it in committee.
The Chair: Point well made, sir.
Ms Murdock: It would be nice.
Mr Turnbull: I think it is very, very important that we all reflect upon that and get on with this, so I would propose that we put the motion.
The Chair: Thank you, sir, for that comment.
All those in favour of Ms Witmer's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Motion is defeated.
Ms Witmer moves that subsection 7(2) be struck and the following substituted:
"Members of professions
"(4) Subsections (4.1) and (4.2) apply with respect to employees who are entitled to practise one of the following professions in Ontario and who are employed in their professional capacity:
"1. Architecture.
"2. Dentistry.
"3. Engineering.
"4. Land Surveying.
"5. Law.
"6. Nursing."
Alternative 3--
Mrs Witmer: Motion to defer.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms Witmer moves that subsection 7(3) of the bill be struck out.
Mr Offer: Point of order: When you ask for this to be struck out, apart from asking for a motion for it to be struck out, can you not just speak against it? Is that also not permissible? Because I didn't bring forward amendments on particular sections that I wish to speak against.
The Chair: The position the Chair takes is that when it is a whole section, then it isn't necessary to bring a motion; one merely votes against it when considering the bill clause-by-clause. But since this is a portion of that clause, it's necessary to bring an amendment.
Mrs Witmer: This amendment would maintain the present requirement that guards be represented by a trade union that represents guards exclusively. This is one of about 80 amendments that the PC Party has brought forward for discussion during the Bill 40 clause-by-clause analysis.
As we know, there was much discussion regarding the representation of guards during the five-week debate we had. Some of the points that were raised during the discussion are certainly worthy of our reconsideration at this time. The international union, the United Plant Guard Workers of America, opposes the government's proposal to eliminate section 12 of the act, which would allow security to be placed in a bargaining unit with non-guards and would allow unions which represent non-guards to represent security guards.
As security guards working in the field, their argument was that a conflict of interest between their duty to observe, to monitor and to report misconduct by other employees could occur in order to protect their employers' property, and their allegiance to their union brothers and sisters would arise if they were placed in the same bargaining unit as non-guards or if they were to be represented by the same union as non-guards. So that was certainly one of the concerns raised by the international union, the United Plant Guard Workers of America.
We heard many other concerns expressed by other people about the need for a trade union to exclusively represent guards. What's happening is that the definition of a security guard in the act is changed from a person who protects the property of the employer to one who monitors other employees. Second, there is the belief that the legislation does not recognize that monitoring other employees automatically gives rise to a fundamental conflict of interest that precludes the same union from representing both groups of employees, especially when both groups are employed by the same employer.
Another concern we heard during the hearings was the fact that, as we know, security guards are routinely called upon to protect employer property and enforce employer interests. Whether placed within the same or a separate bargaining unit, represented by the same trade union, security guards would fall prey to the inevitable pressures from their fellow employees, thereby undermining the confidence demanded of these relationships.
We also know that security guards are called upon to protect employer property during a strike or lockout. If the security guard refuses to cross a picket line put up by employees in the same trade union, employers would be deprived of an essential service. Further, security guards are unlikely to protect the employer's property with the required amount of detachment if the striking employees are represented by the same trade union.
Furthermore, the bill only provides for the placement of security guards who monitor other employees in a separate bargaining unit. The issue of what constitutes monitoring and how much time guards must spend monitoring other employees before the board will consider placing them in a separate union is going to result in protracted litigation.
We also heard from people who appeared before us about other reasons why guards needed to be exempt. We heard from the American Society for Industrial Security that there are a number of enforcement protections provided by their members. They check for drugs and alcoholism in the workplace and they ensure safety in a number of locations. They have on occasion had need to see which employees are necessary for checks and to ensure that certain standards are maintained by all employees within a facility. They strongly believe that, under Bill 40, this could create a very difficult labour-management relationship should all security practitioners at one location be unionized and under the current legislation be grouped in with their brother members locally.
There is also a concern--and this concern, I think, needs to be given some serious consideration--that Bill 40 could cost this province as many as 10,000 jobs. Why? Because there is a belief that the industry must provide an independent security force. Under Bill 40, which allows for unionization of the security force by the same union that has unionized the workforce, there is no autonomy or independence, and I've made reference to this. So customers are already asking now, because of the potential impact of Bill 40, "If you cannot supply independent security officers, what is their value?"
If they cannot have independent security involving people, the alternative is going to be that they are going to turn to electronic systems. Do you know that the sophistication of off-site monitoring already allows a Dallas, Texas, security company to monitor a plant in Ontario, with the alarm responses supplied by use of police at taxpayer expense? Ironically, what Bill 40 is doing is advancing remote technology over jobs at the direct cost to the safety and security of people and property in Ontario.
So I repeat again, because of this, Bill 40 has the potential to cost us 10,000 jobs--that is the reality--if we do not maintain an independent security force. That is why it is absolutely essential that the NDP government supports the amendment which would maintain the present requirement that guards be represented by a trade union that represents guards exclusively.
1740
Mr Offer: I will be supporting this motion. In fact, I had anticipated all that would be necessary was to speak to the particular subsection and vote against it. It's an issue which came before us during our deliberations in the public consultation phase almost daily. Certainly, we've heard a great deal of information around the whole issue of security guards. We heard not only the issue of technology which Mrs Witmer has alluded to, but I believe we heard that very late in the public consultation hearing.
We also heard--I don't know if it ever became part of the public record--that as far as the labour relations board is concerned, a person who guards property is not deemed to be a security guard. I believe that's the distinction the labour relations board has made with respect to security guards: that the exclusion which now exists in the act applies to people who monitor other individuals and does not apply to people who exclusively monitor property. I believe that is something which ministry officials conveyed to myself.
It's important that we recognize that this is not an issue about whether security guards should or should not be part of a union. They can now be part of a union and in fact many are part of a union. The issue is whether it should be exclusively a security guard union as opposed to security guards being part of another union such as the Steelworkers.
I think the argument we heard from many in the security guard industry was that no matter how the legislation is written, in their opinion there is an inherent conflict of interest. That's what they said, and those are the people who are actually doing the work. They said: "We are in the business of monitoring employees. For us to be part of the same union as the people we monitor, in our opinion, is a conflict of interest. It is uncomfortable. It is unnecessary."
The question we have to ask ourselves is, are we going to listen to the security guards that came before the committee? They said: "We monitor. We search employees. We do what is our obligation to do, and for us to be in the same union as them is for us, in our opinion, a conflict of interest." They're uncomfortable. They think it will have an impact on the way and the manner in which they do their jobs.
So I just sit back and say I've never had the opportunity of acting as a security guard, but I'm going to listen to the people who have for many years. They think it's a conflict. They've been operating very happily, thank you very much, under the present legislation. Many of them are already unionized, but they are unionized in their own union. And there they get, in their opinion, the aspects that come towards being unionized but also they're able to keep a distance from the people they are supposed to monitor.
I think we should be giving, very simply, some weighty consideration to what the people who are doing the job have told us. So I am in favour of the status quo. I am in favour of security guards if they wish to be part of a union but a guards-only union. I give strong consideration to the people who came before us and said: "We are uncomfortable. We will be, in our opinion, in a conflict position. It doesn't matter what the words on the paper say. This is all academic. We're out there searching individuals."
We've also heard at times that this is the only jurisdiction that has this type of exclusion. But in response to that we have heard: "Check out what happens in the other areas. Check out what happens in security guard situations in strike position and you will be very surprised to see that it is easy to say other jurisdictions are different. The fact of the matter is, it is clear they are different and they're all trying to get around, and do get around, that difference." That's what we heard from the security guard industry, that it isn't enough and it isn't sufficient to say, "We're the only province that doesn't do it." I think it's clear that all the other provinces should be following this particular situation to keep a guards-only union.
I think it's clear that what we heard was that in the other jurisdictions for which there isn't that exclusivity, there are ways and methods of getting around that. Why? Because difficulties arise. What are those difficulties? Inherent conflicts of interest. These are the people who do the job. These are the people we should be listening to. We have an opportunity to do that. We have an opportunity by saying to subsection (6) of this particular bill: It is repealed, the status quo is reinstituted, that which has been working will continue to work, we will not put those who are involved in the operation of security guards who do not now feel they are in a conflict position in that and we will take away that subsection. We will take away the concerns that they sort of felt.
I believe there was a person from the Steelworkers. I believe the record will show that a person from the Steelworkers came before this committee and said that the day Bill 40 is passed, there will be a campaign on by the Steelworkers to unionize steelworkers. That was an announcement that was made.
Mr Hope: To unionize steelworkers?
Ms Murdock: Security guards.
Mr Offer: Security guards. That the Steelworkers union will in fact go on a campaign to unionize security guards. I believe that caused a great deal of concern within the industry. I believe it prompted more people from the security guard industry to come here and say: "Listen, you will be putting us in a conflict situation. It isn't a question of to be or not to be unionized. We are unionized, but we want our own union. We want one which is clear and free from the people we have to monitor." We can do that. We can listen to the people. We can repeal that part of Bill 40 which institutes this, without question, conflict position. We can reinstitute the status quo which has worked in this province.
1750
Mr Ward: I would like a recorded vote on this issue, because I think it's important. The 20,000-odd number of security guards across Ontario have become aware of who supports their ability to join a union of their choice and who supports a continued restriction on their ability to join a union of their choice. I'm requesting a recorded vote.
Ms Murdock: If I might comment on why I'm not supporting this, just basically, I actually listened to everything that was said here today. True, the argument about the right to join a bargaining unit of their choice in every other jurisdiction, including federal, exists elsewhere in this country. New Brunswick is a little bit different, and basically our provisions will follow more along that line.
In that, if I choose to be a security worker I can, under this provision, choose to join a union of my choice. But if the board feels there is a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict, or if I'm monitoring other co-workers, then the board can make the determination that I should be separate. That is still there, so for those employers who did indicate some concern about a possible conflict of interest or lack of protection of their property, that section still allows for those security guards to be separate and apart.
The board, then, can place guards in separate bargaining units if monitoring is the main function of their job. So I don't see how this is removing the choice that Mr Offer has stated.
Mr Turnbull: I move that the question now be put.
The Chair: There being no further debate--there's a call for a recorded vote--all those in favour of Ms Witmer's motion please indicate. Keep your hand raised until your name is called.
AyesB3
Offer, Turnbull, Witmer.
NaysB5
Hayes, Hope, Klopp, Murdock (Sudbury), Ward (Brantford).
The Chair: That motion is defeated.
Mrs Witmer moves that section 7 of the act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be struck out.
You're so moving, as I understand it.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, I would so move that amendment to delete section 8 from the bill, which refers to the combining of bargaining units.
The Chair: Mrs Witmer, are you moving an amendment to this motion or are you moving this motion?
Mrs Witmer: I'm moving that motion. The intent is that we would have an amendment to delete section 8 from the bill.
The Chair: Yes. So you're dealing with all of section 8 of the bill.
Mrs Witmer: That's right.
The Chair: That's out of order. Sorry, and again, we understand that.
Mrs Witmer moves that subsections 7(1) and (2) of the act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Combining bargaining units
"(1) On application by the employer or trade union, the board may combine two or more bargaining units consisting of employees of an employer into a single bargaining unit if the board finds that a particular labour relations problem exists that would be solved by combining the bargaining units."
Go ahead, Mrs Witmer. That's your alternate 3.
Mrs Witmer: That's right. The intent here is to restrict--
Mr Hope: Why have we got so many alternates?
Mrs Witmer: As I said, the PC Party of Ontario has attempted to listen to all the presentations that were made this summer and has attempted to reflect the views of the presentations that were made. The intent of this amendment is to restrict combining to existing bargaining units. Combinations would not be limited to situations involving only one trade union; combinations would be triggered by a finding that a particular labour relations problem exists that would be cured by redefining the bargaining units.
The rewording of subsection (1) would ensure that the board can only exercise its consolidation power when it determines that a particular labour relations problem exists that would be solved by redefining the bargaining units. So the solution can only be used when there is an identifiable problem. Now, the removal of subsection (2) will restrict combining to existing bargaining units. It will also allow consolidation where an employer has more than one trade union representing employees.
School boards are concerned that the new consolidation powers will benefit only trade unions and will not allow employers to seek the enlarged bargaining units because of the form of the trade union organization. As you know, a school board can have six or seven trade unions representing its employees. Labour boards in other jurisdictions which have the power to consolidate have exercised their power most often in cases where different trade unions have obtained bargaining rights. The Canada board has successfully used its consolidation power to reduce a multiplicity of bargaining units and required employees in the consolidated unit to choose between incumbent units.
I would then move this amendment.
The Chair: Thank you. Any other discussion?
Mr Hope: I've just got a particular question around "particular labour relations problem exists." What's your termination and definition of that?
Mr Offer: No, it's her.
Mr Hope: Oh, I know. I'm just looking at you, Steve. I don't have my glasses on, so I can't see that well anyway, so it's okay.
I'm just curious about your definition of "labour relations problem exists." It seems like you're focusing your attention on the bargaining units being the problem. You don't know if it's the employer's problem or the employees' problem, but the way you've got it labelled here, you're labelling it as the employees' problem that the labour relations problem exists. I'm just curious why you worded it that way. As I told you, Steve, I don't have my glasses on, so I can't see you. I just wanted some clarification. You never know; I could vote in favour of it.
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Mr Turnbull: I'm going to ask that the question be put.
The Chair: That question's there. Mr Offer, did you have something that was relevant to that question posed to the PA?
Ms Murdock: No, it wasn't posed to me; it was posed to Mrs Witmer.
Mr Offer: It wasn't posed to the PA; it was posed to Ms Witmer.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Offer: I must say, I had the same question.
Mr Hope: Really? It must have been that telepathic communication that was going on.
Mr Offer: It just seems that in this amendment the combination is premised on some sort of labour problem existing, and I sometimes feel that a combination of units might take place not because of a problem but because it is more efficient, that there are certain areas and issues that can be better represented and better understood.
I hear the position in the amendment put forward by the Progressive Conservative critic, but in fairness, I don't recall hearing that concern brought forward. I heard a concern with the legislation, the legislative aspect, but I didn't hear it as being able to be rectified in this way. I will be moving an amendment which I think will address what I heard, but I don't think I want the combination of units to be premised on some "labour relations problem." Who is to determine that a problem exists? Who makes the decision? A problem for one may not be a problem to the other. I just feel that it's too imprecise for me, in conscience, to support.
The Chair: All right. Ms Witmer, you can choose or choose not to respond to that.
Mrs Witmer: I'm certainly prepared to respond to that. However, I would appreciate the opportunity, given the hour, to respond to that when we reconvene on Tuesday.
The Chair: Yes, ma'am. It's 6 o'clock. We are adjourning until--go ahead, Ms Murdock.
Ms Murdock: Could we please have this room a little warmer on Tuesday?
Mr Offer: The Amethyst Room is warm.
The Chair: Well, there may be room for debate on that.
We're adjourned until Tuesday at 3:30 or at the end of routine proceedings. Thank you, people.
The committee adjourned at 1800.