CONTENTS
Wednesday 30 September 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:
*Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC) for Mr Turnbull
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville 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:
Dean, Tony, administrator, office of collective bargaining information, Ministry of Labour
Murdock, Sharon, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel:
Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Hopkins, Laura, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1629 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 (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 4:29 and the caucuses are represented. We're going to proceed, on unanimous consent, with five minutes per caucus for opening comments. Unanimous consent is given.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Before we begin, I'd really appreciate receiving a copy of the amendments from both the government and the Liberal Party. I believe that the PC Party has shared its amendments, and I'd like to see the others, please.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I'm going to be very brief and probably won't use my whole five minutes. First of all, we have tabled the amendments that have been prepared thus far by legislative counsel for the government, which will, I think, show those who take the time to read them that we have listened to the hearings and many of the comments and points that were made during the hearings over the five weeks this past summer.
From the outset we have stated that this bill is needed in terms of the changing workplace, and we need to reflect the changes that are going on into the 1990s. I think we have done that. I'm just anxious to get started, so I will defer to my honourable colleagues.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Chair, we're going to be embarking, as you and all members of this committee are aware, on the clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 40. I think it is clear from our hearings that there are very significant and serious concerns with the legislation. It is patently clear that this is a bill for which it is not just labour on one side and management or business on the other. There are a variety of individuals, groups and associations that have concerns with the legislation, that are not part of the so-called business community but care very deeply about their province, about its ability to attract investment and about its continued ability to create jobs in a very new era and type of competition. They have concerns that this bill, as it is presently worded, will significantly impact on any government attracting investment. There is no question that a perception arose that this bill is bad for investment. I do not believe there is anyone in this committee or anyone who took part in these hearings who would not agree with that.
The question will be, what can be done? We certainly will be bringing forward a series of amendments which I believe meet some of the concerns brought forward. We believe it is imperative that this bill be drastically changed so that the balance that has historically been found within the Labour Relations Act be reinstituted; that a positive message, that this is a province that wants and can attract investment and wants and can create jobs, be re-established; that there is a right of workers in this province to freely, without fear and intimidation, choose whether they wish or do not wish to be part of a union.
It is not a question as to whether one is in favour of non-unionization or unionization; it is a question of the basic rights of all individuals to choose freely, without fear, intimidation and coercion. Bill 40 is lacking drastically in that. We will be bringing forward amendments which will deal with that issue and others. I realize that this is now the time for the government to respond to the concerns of those many people who came before the committee voicing concerns on the legislation.
As we deal with this process, I have a concern as to whether there will be sufficient time to deal with all the amendments in all the areas that should be properly brought forward. I have concerns that this committee will not have, in the time dictated to it by the government, the opportunity to deal with the many varied issues that were brought forward. I believe that we will for the first time feel the effect of the new rules, which have in many ways limited debate and impacted upon the rights and privileges of members to speak about those issues and those items which are of concern to them, their constituents and the wellbeing of this province. We will see how this proceeds in the next coming days.
Mrs Witmer: We've just received the government amendments, and I certainly hope that the government has taken the opportunity to listen very carefully to what the people in this province have said during the five weeks of consultation.
I guess I have some concerns, however, that the views of all of those people who have taken the time to put together presentations are not represented, because I can tell you the only documents that I received were the presentations that were made to the committee. I know that there were several hundred other written presentations submitted to the committee which I never had access to and so I was not able to incorporate the views of those individuals and those groups, and I have to tell you I'm concerned that the time of those people and those groups has been wasted. What's the point of telling people to make a presentation, send it in and then we cannot incorporate those points of view? So I'm very concerned about that. I hope that the exercise was not a waste of our time and a waste of taxpayers' money.
I hope, as I say, that we will listen to the presentations; that we will very seriously consider incorporating the many viewpoints, the amendments and the changes that have been proposed. I was very impressed by the excellent presentations that were made this summer. Certainly there was an attempt by people throughout this province to compromise on the amendments, and I hope that the government is listening to the voices of those groups and those individuals.
I'm disappointed that the government has said it's heard nothing new. I personally felt that there was a tremendous amount of new information, and I did feel that many of the groups showed a true willingness, too, to cooperate and to compromise, and I hope that will be taken and reflected in the government amendments.
I'm still concerned that Bill 40 doesn't improve the workplace. It's not going to improve cooperation and harmony unless there are some changes made. I hope that our amendments have been put forward in an attempt to represent the views of all Ontarians. We've taken a look at the presentations by the professional groups, the electrical groups, the municipalities, the school boards, business, children's aid societies and individuals. We have tried to reflect the views of all Ontarians in this province, and I hope that the government will give very serious consideration to the amendments that we are proposing.
Today I'm going to be tabling 49 amendments for sections 1 to 19 and also my private member's bill, because one of the issues that I have been most concerned about--and I raised this issue when Mr Mackenzie first tabled Bill 40 in November 1991--is the need for a secret ballot vote. I'm very pleased that recently the Liberals have jumped on board that bandwagon and have been publicly stating their support for that private member's bill that I put forward, because I am very concerned about the infringement on individual rights that this Bill 40 creates. I believe that all individuals should have the right to a secret ballot vote for certification and ratification and going out on strike, and I hope that the government will certainly incorporate my private member's bill in the amendments to Bill 40.
I hope that as a result of our discussions we will restore the balance in the legislation. It's a very delicate balance that needs to be maintained, and I hope that as a result of our discussions here we can create in this province once again a climate of economic certainty. Every day, more people are losing jobs, and every day we are hearing stories such as the one that has just been released by Forbes magazine about what a terrible place Ontario is in which to invest.
I hope the government will listen. I hope the government will respond to the views of the people in the province of Ontario, and I hope that as a result of the amendments we pass over the next eight days we can promote job creation and we can promote investment security and that people in this province will once again have the opportunity of looking forward to having a job.
The Chair: Thank you. Okay, we're going to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. In view of the terms of reference that were passed by the Legislature, there's a clear suggestion that votes on those respective clauses be deferred until the end of the eight days, so I suspect that there's unanimous consent in that regard. Thank you.
I also want to indicate that as Chair I appreciate the indulgence of the committee. You might know that Bill 164 is being presented for second reading. That's the New Democrat no-fault auto insurance plan. I appreciate the committee's indulgence in stepping out on occasion as that bill is being sneaked through the Legislature. I would like the opportunity, in view of the fact that I appear to retain the position of NDP auto insurance critic, to return to the House to deal with that. In any event, we'll deal firstly with section 1. There'll be a Vice-Chair, of course, to pick up where I left off.
Mrs Witmer: I have several requests to make.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mrs Witmer: First of all, I would like a list of all of the presenters who appeared before the committee. I presently do not have that list. I also would like the complete list of all the groups and individuals that did submit written submissions. As I say, we've not had an opportunity to do justice to any of those submissions, and I just find it totally appalling that we would encourage people to submit that. Finally, I understand that the government tabled on Monday, in the House, the public opinion survey for the labour relations reform act. I would certainly appreciate receiving a copy of that survey.
The Chair: Are there any amendments to section 1 of the bill? I should indicate that there is an amendment by the PC caucus creating section 1.1, Ms Witmer. I'd ask that it be held down in view of what I'm advised will be a corresponding amendment by the government, and the two may result in interplay. It would be premature to deal with yours without your having an opportunity to deal with that one.
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, as we embark on this process I'd like to know if I've got all of the government amendments to the bill, if there may in fact be amendments to the bill dealing with some of the opening sections that we are dealing with. If so, could you please indicate what you, as government, are suggesting for change before we discuss our positions?
Ms Murdock: The government motions that have been submitted to you are as far as we have gone with the legislative counsel. There are still a few that will be coming in, I believe, from section 73.2, and on the employment standards section as well, the end of Bill 40.
In terms of the beginning of the bill, we're having some discussion with legislative counsel and the clerk in regard to the preamble deletion. Depending on whether or not we can get unanimous consent to allow--
The Chair: That's different, Ms Murdock.
Ms Murdock: That's different? That's different than what has been asked?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Murdock: Then I'll wait until that section comes up.
The Chair: Thank you. Any other matters? Thank you. Are there any amendments to section 1?
Mrs Witmer: So you're standing that down?
The Chair: Yes ma'am, please.
Mrs Witmer: Okay.
Ms Murdock: What are you standing down, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I'm standing down the PC amendment creating section 1.1.
Ms Murdock: Could I have a copy of the PC amendments?
Mrs Witmer: They were handed out, Sharon.
The Chair: Ms Murdock, do you want to speak to section 1?
Ms Murdock: We have no changes to that section. I think the advisory service that would be established speaks for itself.
The Chair: Dealing with section 1 of the bill, any discussion?
Mr Offer: I have a question with respect to the advisory service, and it is one which I brought forward when we were dealing with the legislation, especially in regard to the appointment of Mr Vic Pathe. I would like to obtain from the ministry officials or the parliamentary assistant what the essential difference is between this advisory service as contained in Bill 40 and this new service to which Mr Pathe has been appointed deputy minister.
1640
Ms Murdock: If I might, Mr Chair, have Tony Dean speak to it, because they are separate.
The Chair: Go ahead, sir.
Mr Tony Dean: Mr Pathe was recently appointed Deputy Minister of Labour for the renamed labour-management services division, which was formerly the industrial relations division. There is no connection between that division, which has existed for many years, and the proposed service identified in part 1.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like know why I would be standing down section 1 of the act, the preamble.
The Chair: Okay, you don't have to.
Mrs Witmer: No, I would like to--
The Chair: Okay, we'll deal with the Progressive Conservative motion, an amendment to section 1.1 of the bill. Go ahead, and of course with unanimous consent, no need to read these, everybody having the same amendments.
You're moving that the bill be amended by adding the following section at the beginning of part II: 1.1. The preamble to the Labour Relations Act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Preamble
"It is in the interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations and industrial peace between employers and employees by,
"(a) ensuring that workers can freely exercise the right to choose whether to organize and be represented by a trade union of their choice and to participate in the lawful activities of the trade union,
"(b) encouraging the process of cooperative collective bargaining, and
"(c) providing effective methods of joint problem-solving and dispute resolution."
You're moving that, Ms Witmer?
Mrs Witmer: Yes.
The Chair: Do you want to speak to that, please?
Mrs Witmer: Yes. Actually this was one of the viewpoints that was put forward by the presenters this past summer. As you know, Bill 40 would, for the first time, enshrine an extensive new and very much untested purpose clause within the legislation itself, and by including it in the legislation, all other aspects of the legislation are affected by the purpose clause. While the existing preamble has been referred to for guidance by the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a number of years, its impact has been tempered by its position. It has expressed intent, but has not been treated as part of the law. If we include the purpose clause in the body of the legislation, that is virtually without precedent, and we believe that making it a substantive part of the legislation, subject to OLRB interpretation and perhaps judicial interpretation, certainly represents an unwarranted infringement on the collective bargaining process. We will now see if that occurs.
The role of the board should be as a neutral referee which interprets a single set of evenhanded rules assuring that the processes of certification and collective bargaining are administered fairly. That's been the role in the past, and we believe very strongly that should be the role in the future. The board should not be viewed as the proactive arm of government going beyond the process into the content and substance of both certification and bargaining to further the interests of organized labour. Unfortunately, that is what Bill 40 envisions. This then moves the purpose clause into the preamble to the legislation as it exists in the current legislation.
The Chair: Further discussion?
Mr Offer: I'm going to be moving a further amendment to this, but I think that it's important to speak to Ms Witmer's motion firstly.
The Chair: Before you move an amendment to her amendment?
Mr Offer: Yes, if that's fine.
The Chair: God bless.
Mr Offer: We're just getting the hang of this, Mr Chair. You'll have to be patient until we get into the proper flow of things. However, I think that it brings up an important principle. It's a principle which we heard time in and time out when we went through the hearings, and that was that the purpose clause, as dictated by the bill, is one which in many ways rebalances in an unfair way the Labour Relations Act. What we have to do is bring forward a reinstitution of the balance in labour relations. It is without question an important area, because it is these words on this piece of paper which will guide the labour relations board in a very real sense for the many questions that come before it.
I believe that the purpose clause as provided in Bill 40 institutes an imbalance to the legislation, that there must be a rebalancing and that this can only take place in a preambular position. A purpose clause and its position in a legislation are much different than words in a preamble. They are much different, not only in the words but in the way they dictate to the board, and it is important for us to acknowledge that at the outset of these hearings so that we can start with what hopefully will be a balanced set of principles to guide the board in its deliberations.
The Chair: Are you making an amendment to this amendment?
Mr Offer: Yes.
The Chair: Do it slowly so the clerk can write it down, please.
Mr Offer: I've got copies of that, but that's fine. I'm moving that the bill be amended--
The Chair: Not the bill. The amendment's on the floor.
Mr Offer: The preamble.
The Chair: No, there's an amendment.
Mr Offer: I understand that the amendment is to the preamble, correct?
The Chair: Yes, sir.
Mr Offer: Is that not correct?
The Chair: There's a motion on the floor right now moving an amendment to the bill. You can move an amendment to this amendment or you can wait until this amendment's resolved.
Ms Murdock: I'm having some difficulty, mainly because the preamble, as far as we've been told, has not been opened and therefore is out of order for any motion.
The Chair: Do you really want to push that?
Ms Murdock: I don't know. I'm wondering why we were told that and now we're working on this amendment.
The Chair: I'm satisfied this motion's in order.
Ms Murdock: Okay.
The Chair: Now, is there any further debate on this motion?
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'd just like to speak in favour of it very, very briefly. I think one of the main problems in our economy today is lack of certainty. This amendment would provide some certainty in that decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board with respect to this Bill 40, the new Labour Relations Act, would likely be more certain if this amendment were passed, and I would encourage the government members to support it.
Ms Murdock: Having said that, and I'll quote Ms Witmer when she said that as a preamble this would be intent, it has in the past and historically been intent but not law, yet what I'm reading under this is that the existing preamble would be repealed and a new preamble would be set, and I would not support that.
The Chair: Any further debate? All in favour--
Mr Offer: Wait just a moment. I just want to be very clear as we proceed. It is my understanding--and maybe you can help me out on this--that the motion brought forward by Ms Witmer is to the preamble of the act. It does, I believe, do two things. I'd just like to get an understanding. It does two things. The first is that it repeals the existing preamble of the Labour Relations Act, and secondly, it inserts in its stead the words of the Progressive Conservative motion as a preamble to the legislation.
The Chair: Yes, sir.
Mr Offer: That is my understanding.
The Chair: Yes, that's exactly what it does.
1650
Mrs Witmer: Our intention here is to place the purpose clause in the preamble to the legislation, and remove the purpose clause and have only the preamble as we presently have. That's my intent.
The Chair: Any further debate? All those in favour, please indicate. Opposed? The motion's defeated.
Go ahead, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: I think there is a motion in much the same form which is being circulated now.
I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section at the beginning of part II:
"1.1 The preamble to the Labour Relations Act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Preamble
"It is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations and industrial peace between employers and employees by ensuring that workers can freely exercise the right to choose whether to organize and be represented by a trade union of their choice and to participate in the lawful activities of the trade union."
I don't think we should underestimate the importance of what we heard during the hearings. People came before us and spoke about what a purpose clause means in the day-to-day deliberations of the board.
Now, I am not yet directing my mind to the words of whatever that purpose clause is but to the fact that there is one and that it does dictate in a fundamental way how a board is going to resolve matters that come before it. We heard that the wording in a preamble sets the stage. It sends out a message, not a perception but in a real way a statement as to what labour relations are and should be and hope to be in the province of Ontario.
The motion I have brought forward to be inserted in the preambular portion of the legislation states, "It is in the public interest of the province of Ontario"--meaning the people of the province--"to further harmonious relations and industrial peace." We can't disagree with that.
It states further that workers should be able to "exercise the right to choose whether to organize and be represented by a trade union of their choice." We can't reject that. I think that we need, without any question, this type of wording, this type of statement which sets the stage that workers do have the right to freely exercise their choice to be organized in the trade union they so choose. How can we, how can anyone speak against those words?
Thirdly, it talks about participating "in the lawful activities of the trade union." That says an awful lot. It says that there are activities which trade unions carry on and that the province understands and supports workers in a participatory role in the lawful activities of trade unions.
These are three very important principles--first, public interest to further harmonious relations; second, workers having the right to choose; third, workers to be part, if they wish, of the activities of a trade union in a lawful way--which I believe are essential in sending out not a perception but a statement that this is a province which embraces these, that this is a province which understands and recognizes that workers should, if they want, be part of it.
To vote against this is to say, "We are not in favour of these three principles." That's what we say. So I make these statements, but I break them down in terms of their essential components because there are three in nature, and they will be a guiding tool in how the act is defined, in how people look upon this province, and I would ask for members' support for this amendment.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to speak to Mr Offer's motion? Go ahead, Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: I will certainly support the motion. I certainly do believe that we need to encourage harmonious relations within the province. Unfortunately, at the present time, the legislation as it has been introduced and the consultation process we've gone through has had a very disastrous effect on that harmonious relationship and we need to do whatever we can to restore that. We need industrial peace and it's absolutely essential that employers and employees work together in a very cooperative manner, and anything we can do to make sure that happens we need to support.
Workers do have the right to join or not join a union and we need to ensure that employees can freely make that choice. In order to make that choice, I believe they need to be given all the essential information as to what is involved in joining a union and what is the impact, and also what it means if they're not unionized.
I do believe they're entitled to information and they're entitled to the right to be represented by a trade union, if that is their choice, and to participate in the activities of that trade union. I believe, however, that before they make that choice, they need to have all the information and there needs to be a secret ballot vote. If that's the intent of this preamble, I certainly would support that.
The Chair: No further debate? All those in favour please indicate. Opposed? Mr Offer's motion is defeated.
No further amendments to section 1 of the bill? Any discussion regarding section 1 of the bill? Go ahead, sir.
Mr Offer: Just before we talk about section 1, and I'm going to ask for your guidance in this matter, I have sort of two section 1s. One is the advisory service and then we sort of went into the preamble. I'm wondering if we're actually into two areas of the bill.
The Chair: We are dealing with section 1. The bill only deals with section 1, which is advisory service.
Mr Offer: That was exactly my question, because as it only dealt with the advisory service, and we spoke to that, Ms Witmer moved a motion which did not deal with that aspect; it dealt with the preamble to the bill. I'm still hung up on the fact that we've dealt with the preamble to the bill and Ms Witmer's motion--in fact my motion--did not deal with the advisory service aspect, but rather one before.
The Chair: Understanding that both of them were defeated, now we're ready to deal with section 1 of the bill.
Interjection: All those in favour?
The Chair: We're deferring votes on these sections in the bill until the end of these eight days, on unanimous consent. Thank you.
We've got a part II, section 2 of the bill. Ms Witmer has a motion. She moves that subsection 2(1) of the bill be struck out. Is that correct? Please speak to that.
1700
Mrs Witmer: The intent of this amendment is to maintain the $1 membership requirement. We believe that this is, at the present time, the only requirement which may cause an individual to seriously consider his or her action if the opportunity is not presented for an information session and the secret ballot vote. Although that $1 is certainly a nominal fee, it does draw the attention of the employee to the seriousness of the decision that he is about to make as to whether or not to join the union. The elimination of the requirement gains even greater importance when you set it against the proposal from the government to eliminate petitions. That certainly concerns me as well.
The workers' rights of self-determination are being infringed upon through the certification process because Bill 40 takes away the right to revoke your membership once the union has applied to the labour board. Bill 40 takes away the right to oppose by way of a petition and it takes away the small safeguard of that $1 minimum payment.
These proposals collectively remove any remaining safeguards to ensure that the true wishes of employees will be known, and thus we feel it is absolutely essential that the $1 membership requirement, although very nominal, be maintained because it does draw the employee's attention to the fact that this is a serious decision that he or she is making, and we then would propose that amendment.
Mr Offer: I must say that I certainly do understand the purpose for this amendment. I think it is clear that in the past there has been the fact that when one asks for a dollar, it immediately results in a reaction--"What is this for? Why do I have to pay this dollar?"--which immediately provides information. The reason for that payment is brought forward. It has, I think, in the past acted as a safeguard, if you will, to make certain that employees in organizing drives are informed as to what they are signing. I don't think there's anything the matter with that, to be very frank with you.
The government is attempting in the bill to delete the $1 membership fee, which will of course result, of necessity, in workers being able to sign and not having to pay anything, and so we lose a safeguard for workers in this province.
This can be, without question, dealt with if I could hear from the government members at this time whether they will be proposing--Mr Chair, I say this now because it will have an effect on whether I support this amendment or not. I am mainly concerned that workers are informed as to what they are doing and why. I am mainly concerned that they are given this information in a forum which is free from fear, intimidation and coercion from whatever source. We heard during our committee hearings that there are examples of this type of activity taking place on the part of employers, and in fairness there were those who said that the union organizers are also not free from this type of criticism. We can debate whether this is or is not the fact. But the question still remains that we must, in legislation, make certain that workers, either of their own volition or through mandatory terms in legislation, are given notice of their rights.
I understand the reason for the repeal of the $1. It is my understanding that the real reason for deleting the $1 is because it has been used as an argument in a certification drive, an argument which I think we've heard referred to as non-payment of a card. This has, in cases, thwarted organizing drives. So the question is clear that we are not doing this, and this amendment by the government is not there for any enhancement of workers' rights, it is there because it has been used in an argument against certification, against organizers.
I think we have to be clear, direct and honest about what this amendment is here for, so I go back to my concern about the worker and his or her rights being made known to them before they sign a card. We've heard from people coming before the committee who say they sign a card and they are told, "You sign this and you get a vote." We know, though we can't substantiate this--just as we can't substantiate all of the examples of employer activities during organizing drives--that this really isn't what the signing of a card is. It doesn't do that of necessity, because there is this thing that still exists in the legislation called automatic certification.
My question to the parliamentary assistant, if this is possible and permissible, is: Will the government be bringing forward amendments to this bill which mandate that workers are given notice of their rights under the legislation?
Ms Murdock: We attempted something along that line during the consultation in the discussion paper, and it was pretty clear after the consultations that they didn't want information posted. The posting of information particularly was not appreciated, predominantly by employers, although also by some of the union groups. What we decided to do, rather than mandate it legislatively, was go with an expansion of the ministry's public information and education system with a telephone information service provided.
The Chair: Your answer is no.
Ms Murdock: We are doing it, but not mandating it.
Mr Offer: It then puts me on the horns of a dilemma, because I believe it is absolutely imperative that workers be given notice. You might have some concerns as to how that notice is given, but I think it is absolutely imperative that the workers of this province, in an organizing drive, especially because petitions have been eliminated in further sections, be given notice of their rights. It is not enough to say to a worker, after the application for certification is filed, "You had the right to change your mind." That's the way Bill 40 would impact. That is not good enough for the workers of this province.
The parliamentary assistant looks quizzically at me, but it is clear that when you eliminate post-application petitions or changes of mind and do not do that to pre-application changes of mind, which the government has not done unless there is something I have not heard of, if you do not tell a worker that he or she has the right to change his or her mind, then in fact one cannot expect the worker to exercise that right. What mechanism is in place to inform workers of this province that when they sign a union card they have the right to change their minds until the organizers file the application? I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant where that information can and will be given to the workers of this province, because they will certainly ask that question if they're paying a dollar.
1710
The Chair: Is your answer the same as the previous response?
Ms Murdock: Well, no. I don't see how paying a dollar, in truth, will respond to the concerns that Mr Offer has stated. In fact, if the Ministry of Labour has an information service that is available, that information service number, hotline, whatever, can be posted in a workplace all year round and the employees at that point can not only call down for information about union organizing but can also call down for health and safety matters or any other pieces of information. In truth, I do not see how a $1 union fee would specifically respond to the concerns of Mr Offer, and I won't be supporting this.
Mr Offer: But what is the trigger that would alert a worker in this province to that number during an organizing drive? What would trigger a worker in this province in an organizing drive after he has--or has not, by the way--signed a union card, to call that number to say, "Boy, I need to know my rights and I just happen to have this number"? Where is it in the legislation that gives that notice, forgetting about how it doesn't even tell the worker when his or her rights are, it doesn't even alert them to the fact that there's such a number? Where is it?
Ms Murdock: There is no trigger in the legislation to do that. Right now, our ministry gets all kinds of calls on this.
Mr Offer: I don't know that we can allow workers to be left out like that. I don't believe we can do that. I think that's unfair to workers, to expect that they will know all their rights under the Labour Relations Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act and all the other acts, that they will know of this number, that they can call this number, that there is information they can be given, that it will be given in a timely fashion and that they can then act accordingly. I have a concern about that.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Further discussion on Ms Witmer's motion?
Mr Offer: I think the government members are going to see the light as we deal with this. I would like this section to be stood down.
Interjections.
Mr Offer: I just want Ms Witmer to listen to this part. I just have no doubt, after hearing the very important presentations made to the committee, that as we deal with this bill government members will come to realize, hopefully in the next eight legislative days, that they are not informing workers of their rights and there's something wrong with that. I would ask that this section--because I see it as tying in, not adequately so, but having a tie-in to doing something at least to make workers ask what their rights are--be stood down, that this amendment and the section with which we are dealing be stood down, because we're going to be dealing in a very real way with the whole question of certification drives, organizing drives and notice and what should be given.
I would like, Mr Chair, to deal with this amendment, which I think is important, after I see whether the government members are in favour of or opposed to informing workers of their rights. So far they've said no, but I--call me an optimist--just think that as we deal with this bill they will see the glaring holes within it. So I would ask that this very important motion be stood down until we deal with the whole question of workers' rights and notice of information to workers.
Ms Murdock: I'm not in agreement with standing this down, mostly because I have a feeling that if we're going to use that rationale for standing down each and every thing, we'll be standing down a tremendous number over the period of the next eight days. So I would just not agree to that, but then it's not my motion, so I'll leave it to Ms Witmer.
The Vice-Chair: Further discussion? We're dealing with Ms Witmer's amendment.
Mr Offer: No, we're not.
The Vice-Chair: Yes, we are.
Mr Offer: With the greatest respect, Mr Chair, I think we're dealing with the request that I made. I don't think that we can deal with Ms Murdock's amendment--
Mrs Witmer: Mrs Witmer's.
The Vice-Chair: Mrs Witmer's.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Maybe we'll see the light.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Everybody introduce themselves.
The Vice-Chair: It's getting to that point where we have to go round the room.
Mr Offer: I've explained why I have a difficulty, why I've made my request, because I think that it does tie in in some way with workers' right to know, and we will find out later on from the government members whether they--I know that they were present--were listening. Of the need to allow workers in this province to know their rights, especially during an organizing drive, this amendment is important. It ties into that, but it may be impacted if the government members want to give--when they have the opportunity, in legislative form--the enshrinement of the right of a worker to know his or her rights in this province.
We know that the Minister of Labour is not providing an amendment. We know the Minister of Labour has already said no to that, but we also know the Minister of Labour wasn't at any of the hearings; government members were.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Offer. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion be deferred? It's defeated.
We're dealing with Ms Witmer's motion. All those in favour of subsection (2) of the motion, please indicate. Opposed? Motion's defeated.
Ms Witmer, do you have a further motion?
Mrs Witmer: Yes, I do.
I move that subsection 2(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"2(1) The definition of "member" in subsection 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act is repealed and the following substituted:
"`Member,' when used with reference to a trade union, includes a person who,
"(a) has applied for membership in a trade union, and
"(b) has paid the trade union on the member's own behalf an amount at least equal to one month's dues of the trade union."
1720
The intent of this amendment to increase the membership fee from $1 to the equivalent of one month's dues is to ensure that all employees are fully informed as to what is involved in joining a union. The reason for the one month's dues is based on the fact that prospective union members are going to have to pay that type of monthly dues when or if the certification campaign is successful. This requirement, then, to pay one month's dues when signing a union card will ensure that the individual joining the union clearly knows and considers the financial obligation that he or she is undertaking and also is aware of the other implications, such as the history of the union and what's involved if you go on strike.
I am not convinced that at the present time all individuals really are aware of what it means to join a union. We know there is coercion, that there is harassment on both sides, whether from the union organizers or from the employers. We need to ensure that people have access to the information. Although the government talks about this information service being available, I can tell you that most people are not aware of all the services the government provides for them. If someone is put into a position where he has to pay one month's dues, believe me, he will give very serious consideration to what is involved and the financial obligation he is undertaking.
Individuals need to consider seriously their decision to belong to a union, and thus I believe this initiation fee, equivalent to one month's dues, should be paid by all those people signing a union card as a demonstration of the fact that they have thought it over carefully and that as a result of thinking it over carefully and having been fully informed they now are announcing their intention.
This paying the membership fee which would be equivalent to one month's dues becomes even more important when you take into consideration the fact that the government is proposing to eliminate the petition safeguard. So people do need to have an opportunity prior to joining a union to really carefully consider the implications, because they will no longer have the opportunity after the union is certified. Thus, we support very strongly the increase of the membership fee to the equivalent of one month's dues to ensure that the individual joining the union does clearly know and understand all the implications of what is involved in joining a union.
The Chair: All those in favour please indicate.
Mr Offer: Wait.
The Chair: Come on over here, Mr Offer, at your place, and speak to it.
Mr Offer: You spoke so eloquently earlier on about the coffee in the Legislature, I thought I'd take advantage of it, and the first time I take advantage of it, bang.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: I'd like to get a point of information. Ms Witmer has moved this motion which speaks to one month's dues. Could we get some idea as to what that might mean in dollars and cents?
The Chair: Parliamentary assistant.
Ms Murdock: It would be different for different locals. I can't speak for the unions.
Mr Offer: My question was actually to Ms Witmer.
The Chair: Come on up here, Ms Witmer. Would you like to answer Mr Offer's question?
Mr Offer: I had a question of--
The Chair: She heard the question.
Mr Offer: --information, which was whether there was a dollar figure that was in mind when this amendment was drafted.
Mrs Witmer: There was no specific dollar figure in mind; however, I guess it would depend on the organization involved.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much. Everyone heard what my comments were on the previous matter. I must say, I have a bit of a concern in this area, and I'll tell you why.
My motion earlier dealt with the preamble, the third part of that, talking about workers able to exercise the right to choose. I'm aware that the government members voted that principle down, but it's an important principle, and even though the government members voted it down it's still a principle which I hold on to. I think workers should have the right to choose, to be able to decide whether they wish or wish not to be part of a union, to be informed, to be able to do so free from intimidation or coercion.
I have a concern that this motion--though I understand why it's there; it's really there as a safeguard that workers will demand to know their rights in an organizing drive, and I am in favour of that--may result in a monetary hurdle which is not really embracing the principle of allowing workers to choose. I have a concern, especially as we have not been able to receive with any degree of certainty what that monetary amount may be. It may be $5 on a monthly basis, it may be $100 on a monthly basis. I think that's an awful lot of money. We know it's going to be more than $1, we just don't know how much more.
I guess I am concerned that possibly a worker--I'm thinking about this--may want to join a union but the membership fee is one which he or she cannot see as being affordable. I don't know that that should be a hurdle for a worker joining a union. I'm in favour of them being informed of their rights, but I don't want the hurdle to be so great that they can't freely choose.
To carry this one step further, what if the direction of the amendment is successful? What if the workers are, as a result of this amendment, given their rights, and as a result of knowing their rights still decide to choose to join? Fine. But then what if the monetary amount is one which they cannot handle?
I think we all recognize the state of our economy in this day and age, and I don't know that that really embraces the principle of choice, so I must say that I would have some concerns with this section.
I asked in the earlier amendment that a section of this kind, although without the dollar amount, be set aside until we deal in a more comprehensive way with notice to workers. I recognize that that was not given; however, I will make that request once more to ask that this motion be--forgive me, I'm not familiar with the actual parliamentary jargon--set aside to be dealt with at a later point in terms of voting.
The Chair: It's a motion to defer.
Mr Offer: That's the word.
1730
The Chair: All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Motion to defer is defeated. Go ahead, Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: The question of deferral on very important issues which do have an impact on other sections is very troubling to me. I have concerns about this section, as I've indicated. I don't know that it is in the best interests of the workers of this province.
Mrs Witmer: If it's any consolation to Mr Offer, we share his concerns, and our amendments later on in section 8 address the concerns regarding the intent to certify, so we are quite comfortable going ahead with this amendment at the present time.
I'd also like to indicate that if we are really concerned about the need for cooperation and harmony in the province, I hope the government will take into very serious consideration the need to have a membership fee here, which would clearly indicate that the member contemplating unionization has given it careful consideration and has been fully informed of his or her rights and obligations. Because as I see it at the present time, Bill 40, although it proposes to improve cooperation and harmony, all it's really doing is making it easier to facilitate unionization, and I don't see much of an attempt for cooperation and harmony. Certainly, if we gave everybody the opportunity to know all the facts, that, in my opinion, would certainly go a long way to addressing the objective of cooperation and harmony in the workplace.
The Chair: All in favour of Ms Witmer's motion, please indicate. Opposed? The motion is defeated.
There are no other amendments that appear to subsection 2(1). Any further discussion of subsection 2(1)? Thank you.
We move now to subsection 2(2). Any amendments to subsection 2(2)? No amendments. Any discussion of subsection 2(2)?
Subsection 2(3) of the bill? No amendments? Any discussion about subsection 2(3) of the bill? Thank you.
We're moving now to section 3 of the bill. Any amendments to section 3? There are no amendments to section 3. Any discussion regarding section 3?
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, a point of clarification: I understand section 3--just to make certain that I'm on the right track--deals with the heading "Application and Purposes of the Act." Is that correct?
Ms Murdock: Yes, that's correct.
Mr Offer: Again, this is probably for some others to help, but though it sounds quite innocuous, "Application and Purposes of the Act," that introduces us to the purposes of the act.
Ms Murdock: Ah, I see what you're saying.
Mr Offer: So though I do not have a motion to that, I do have discussion around that section. I think we have to be very careful here, because this seemingly innocuous section is indeed nothing less than the key that opens the door to the imbalance of the act. It hasn't got the words to it, but it does, for the first time, indicate that there will be, within the legislation, a purpose. I think that's very important.
I am opposed to the purpose being found within the legislation. I know we have already dealt with the preamble, but I am very much concerned that we are opening the door, the intent of which we cannot imagine, by encompassing the purpose, certainly what is now in Bill 40, to be blanketed over all actions that take place throughout the act, especially the actions of the board.
It is these small sections that come back to haunt in a very real way. It is these small sections which say and send out the message that there is going to be not a preamble, but a purpose clause. I believe there is a significant difference in the impact a purpose clause will have over a preamble. The heading "Application and Purposes" opens the door for the purpose clause.
I believe that though a preamble is important, it is important in terms of setting the stage for some guiding principles. In my amendment, which was defeated by the government--though I can't imagine why, because all it talked about was harmonious relations, being participants in the lawful activities of unions and giving workers the right to choose; I do not know why the government finds that so difficult to accept. We have to recognize that a purpose clause will be a mandatory dictation to the Ontario Labour Relations Board in many areas and questions that are before the board. It will result in decisions which may in a strange sense fly in the face of the preamble of the legislation.
I wonder if we have recognized what happens when the argument is made that the purpose within the legislation is something different than the preamble of the legislation. What horrors are unleashed for workers in this province by not recognizing this at this stage when we had this opportunity? I'm voting against this section, Mr Chair.
Mrs Witmer: I'm very concerned about the section that we are about to discuss, because for the first time, instead of simply encouraging the process of collective bargaining and letting the party negotiate the results, we now have an act which is going to specify the goals that are to be accomplished by collective bargaining.
I am extremely concerned that the government did not listen. There were numerous excellent presentations made throughout the summer regarding the purpose clause, regarding the fact that this was very different from anything else happening elsewhere, and also that this certainly was giving a lot of power to a third body. Again, this does absolutely nothing to facilitate harmony and cooperation in the workplace, because it does give the responsibility to settle differences to the third body. I will certainly at a later date be introducing amendments that would totally eliminate and strike out section 5, the purposes of this act.
Mr Offer: I have a question of the parliamentary assistant and ministry staff, whether they have conducted an analysis of the conflict of the preamble with their purpose clause, as is either found in Bill 40 or, as I expect will be hoped, in their opinion, to be changed. Have you conducted any analysis of the inherent contradiction that your purpose clause in the legislation has with your preamble to the act, and is that the reason you are asking for the preamble to be taken away from the bill?
1740
Ms Murdock: We are still speaking to section 3, are we, Mr Chair?
Interjection.
Ms Murdock: Section 3 was what you originally started speaking to.
Mr Offer: Yes, which is the--
Ms Murdock: --heading, "Application and Purposes of the Act."
Mr Offer: I'm directing my concerns to the "purposes" part of the heading. It is my understanding that you are hoping that the preamble of the act be deleted. I note you're shaking your head in support of that.
Ms Murdock: I am nodding my head yes.
Mr Offer: So you are hoping that the preamble to the Labour Relations Act in the province of Ontario is deleted. I am wondering whether you are doing so--actually, I asked the question why, but I am concerned that maybe you are doing so because of some inherent contradiction between the preamble and the purposes.
Ms Murdock: No. There are only five acts in all of Canada that have a preamble, one of which is the Ontario Labour Relations Act. You can't think of any legislation, and none of us could when we started looking through some of it, where you have both a preamble and a purpose clause. We feel that it needs clear directions rather than intentions, from a purpose clause as compared to a preamble, so we just think the purpose clause would be more effective.
In terms of the application and purposes of the act under section 3, where I thought you were heading, Mr Offer, was that you were saying it was a little premature as we hadn't even put in section 5 yet. However, since you never got to that, under section 3 I can't see how the comparison between the preamble and the purpose clause would have anything to do with that section.
Mr Offer: I don't know if Ms Witmer has any comments on this, but I brought it up at this point because I think you have to do so at the very earliest time, and the earliest time is when you say the act will now have an application and purpose. So if you don't deal with it now, then it makes it a little late down the line.
Sure, we're going to talk about section 5 of the bill, but I want to talk about the concerns. I think it's highlighted when the government wants to get rid of the preamble to the legislation. I think in your response you spoke about how you wanted it to be absolutely clear, which again highlighted concerns, because are you saying that the existence of a preamble and the existence of a purpose clause, if they are not in total sync with one another, are going to cause some major difficulties?
There are going to be lawyers coming before the board who are going to argue on the basis of the purpose clause and they're going to be going against other lawyers on the same question who are going to be making exactly the opposite argument on the basis of the preamble. What are we getting into, as far as the Minister of Labour is concerned?
Ms Murdock: You're right. You're a lawyer, Mr Offer, and you know full well that if you give a lawyer two different sections under any act, he will find all kinds of ways to interpret a different word from one to the other. So having both would be, I think, inexcusable and certainly cause all kinds of uses of the Ontario Labour Relations Board that would be non-productive, at the very least. I think too that if you go back to our discussion paper which we put out last November, it is very clear there that the preamble was to be replaced with the purpose clause to reflect the underlying objectives of the act more explicitly. I don't think we've ever not indicated how we are looking at this.
Now, if you're asking that section 3 be deferred until after this section is done, I have no objections to that.
Mr Offer: We'll take it now.
Ms Murdock: Aren't I nice?
The Chair: Want to answer that, Mr Offer?
Mr Offer: I'm sure it was just a comment. I would have liked to have that type of generosity in the sections for which I asked for a deferral.
Mrs Witmer: I have several questions for the parliamentary assistant. How many provinces did you say have a preamble?
Ms Murdock: No, I didn't say "provinces." I said there are five pieces of legislation that have a preamble. Preambles are generally not used legally, so they're rare to have, that's true, mostly because they are not interpreted within the legislation. You were right when you said earlier that it shows the intent of an act but that it is not the law.
Mrs Witmer: Are there any other provinces that have a purpose clause similar to the--
Ms Murdock: Oh, yes. Ontario has thousands of them in its legislation.
Mrs Witmer: No, no. Are there any other provinces--
Ms Murdock: In the labour act?
Mrs Witmer: --in the labour act--across Canada that would have a purpose clause similar to the one you're suggesting?
Ms Murdock: I'm not sure. Looking at my discussion paper, because we did have something on that--I don't have them with me. I can get it for you.
Mrs Witmer: I'd be interested in knowing whether any other provinces do have the type of purpose clause the government is suggesting. I have tremendous concerns. This is certainly a change, and this purpose clause that's being suggested here confers jurisdiction on the board to create law without reference to any specific provisions of the act. Certainly there are goals here that are to be accomplished regarding collective bargaining that I have a tremendous amount of concern about.
It's this purpose clause that is going to create the hardship in the province. It does anything but create a harmonious and cooperative and level playing field.
Ms Murdock: Mr Chair, section 3, is that not where we're at? We aren't at the purpose clause yet.
Mrs Witmer: I was looking for an answer as to what other provinces did have a purpose clause.
Ms Murdock: I had already answered that and said I wasn't sure, but that we would get the information for you. Sorry; I didn't realize you were asking it again.
Mrs Witmer: That suggests to me there are no other provinces that would be similar to what is being suggested here that would speak to the goals that are to be accomplished by collective bargaining and also the facilitation.
Ms Murdock: I was just informed by the ministry staff that BC definitely has a purpose clause. Now, whether it is to the same degree as ours, I can't answer that; I don't know. Most legislation--most, not all--has a purpose clause.
Mrs Witmer: I'm not concerned about the purpose clause; I'm concerned about what this purpose clause speaks to, and that is to--
Ms Murdock: We're not at the purpose clause yet, is what I'm saying. When we get there, I think that is the more appropriate time to discuss it. But I defer to the Chair for that ruling.
The Chair: You've got all the time you want, up to eight days.
Mrs Witmer: From our experience and from what we've learned in taking a look at this, purpose clauses are very rare in any type of legislation. There are not too many purpose clauses in legislation, so this is certainly an exception. I share the concern that has been raised by Mr Offer about this entire section.
This is probably one of the most contentious sections. I guess I'm just so surprised that the government has not made any attempt to even compromise on the purpose clause.
1750
Ms Murdock: We haven't come to those amendments yet, and that's where I'm saying we're not at the purpose clause yet. Until we get to that purpose clause, the government amendment will not be introduced.
The Chair: Does the parliamentary assistant want to distribute the proposed amendments to the purpose clause?
Ms Murdock: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. As I said, though, we are at section 3, or at least I believe we're speaking to section 3, and the purpose clause does not come until section 5.
Mrs Witmer: I guess it certainly would be beneficial for those of us who haven't had an opportunity to see what the government's proposing if we were given all of the information so that we could discuss this.
The Chair: Quite right. That could be said of every caucus, including those--
Ms Murdock: Yes. I haven't read all of yours.
The Chair: --who anticipate there are any motions down the road more than the government caucus has already indicated this afternoon.
Mr Offer: There are two matters which I think are brought forward in section 3. The parliamentary assistant is quite right when she states that we are not at this point dealing with the words of the purpose clause. What we are doing in this section is talking about the heading. I have some concerns, and I brought them out, because the heading says to people who get to this part of the act that there is an application and a purpose somewhere here. I think we have to deal with this.
I think Ms Witmer is quite right when she asks ministry officials what the experience is in other labour legislations that have a preamble and a purpose clause. I hope we can recognize that we can be getting into an area where a preamble and a purpose clause within the same legislation may at one time or another conflict in their direction.
I think this is the time to deal with this type of matter even though we're not dealing with the section and the actual words of the purpose clause, because is it the government's intent that you can have one or the other? Is that the reason the government has asked that the preamble of the act be struck out, because you can have, for clarity, one or the other?
My question then becomes, what does the government, which is operating under closure, time allocation, do at the end of the day when this bill may in fact contain a preamble and a purpose clause? What do you do then? That is now the law of the land. It would seem to me it's irresponsible in the extreme to proceed when you have already discovered, and I think rightly so, by the way, the potential of conflict. I'd like to know from the government, what are you going to do?
I have a second question, and just a short question, by the way. I thought at the beginning of the day the parliamentary assistant indicated there were no further amendments until we passed a certain section, and now I have an amendment.
Ms Murdock: On section 5?
Mr Offer: Yes, section 5. I asked the question at the beginning of the day as to whether there were any further government amendments to the beginning of the act and I believe the parliamentary assistant indicated that we have all of the amendments by the government to, if memory serves me correct, section 73 of the Labour Relations Act. I have now been presented with an amendment which is before section 73. I ask the parliamentary assistant, with all due respect, are there any more surprises?
Ms Murdock: No, there aren't. Actually, it was tabled.
The Chair: You were misunderstood on that matter?
Ms Murdock: Yes. The amendment was tabled but it was not distributed.
The Chair: All right. Mr Offer, your second question.
Mr Offer: My second question I just asked, and I thank you very much for the response. Now to the first question, which dealt with, what are you going to do to the real possibility of being left with a preamble and a purpose clause?
Ms Murdock: I have stated this already, but again, what I would suggest is that we defer section 3 and section 4 and move to section 5, which would resolve much of this discussion. If that requires a motion, Mr Chair, I'll so do that.
Mrs Witmer: It's not going to resolve it.
Ms Murdock: At least, then, we'll be on a debate on what you're talking about.
Mr Offer: No.
Ms Murdock: Yes, you will, because if you read the second page of the amendment before you, you'll see where that will go. In other words, if we were to debate section 5 of the bill and for the moment defer sections 3 and 4, I think we would get much of the discussion that we've been having for the past 20 minutes resolved.
Mr Offer: When you say "section 5," you're talking about the handwritten section 5?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Offer: Because I have just noted on page 2 of your amendment to the purpose clause--
Ms Murdock: Sub 3, yes.
Mr Offer: Clause 3; I'm sorry. Page 2 repeals the preamble of the act.
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Offer: So you are expecting that the repeal of the preamble, as contained in the section, is in order and you don't need unanimous consent, which you asked for at the beginning of the hearing.
Ms Murdock: Yes, there were three avenues of going and we decided to go this route, since I hadn't heard--
Mr Offer: I know of two; I wonder what the third one was.
The Chair: When that motion is put, obviously there will be determination of whether it's in order in the same regard that there was a determination whether your motion dealing with section 1.1 and Ms Witmer's motion dealing with section 1.1 were in order. I expect that the Chair would be consistent.
Ms Murdock: Thank you. I'll continue discussing it, but I just think it would probably make things much easier and more orderly, since this seems to be a bone of contention, if we were to discuss it and then move back to sections 3 and 4. That depends on what you want to do, the opposition members. Do you want me to move that, Mr Chair? I can so move.
The Chair: What do you want to do?
Ms Murdock: Defer section 3 of the bill and section 4 of the bill and move to section 5 of the bill.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent in that regard?
Mr Offer: No.
The Chair: Okay, go ahead, Mr Offer. Are you still dealing with section 3 of the bill?
Mr Offer: Yes.
Interjections.
The Chair: Okay, go ahead, deal with it.
Mr Offer: I mean, the members have asked, "How come you've said no?" The request was to delete--
Ms Murdock: Not delete.
Mr Offer: To defer sections 3 and 4 of the bill.
Ms Murdock: Till after we finish 5.
Mr Offer: The way I read section 4 is that it speaks to a number of other areas: agriculture, physicians, horticultural operations. I don't know why you would be asking for the deferral of section 4 of the bill.
Ms Murdock: Fine, we'll continue with 3. I don't care how you want to do this.
The Chair: Let's carry on with 3, Mr Offer.
Ms Murdock: It's 6 o'clock.
The Chair: Thank you. No further discussion regarding 3. We're dealing with subsection 4. Ms Witmer moves that subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out.
Mrs Witmer: This amendment maintains the exclusion for domestics. Throughout the discussion, during the five weeks of hearings, we did hear concern expressed about the need to ensure peace and wellbeing for families who depend on domestics for care of their families. I guess the question was raised, what would happen in the case of a strike?
Under the replacement worker provisions, the parents are barred from using any other person to take care of their children unless the children are in need of special protection as defined in the Child and Family Services Act. Since most parents normally do not have other employees in the household, family members or friends could not take care of the children during such a strike since the ban on replacement workers includes a ban on persons whether they are hired for pay or not.
I guess some of the questions we have to ask ourselves are: Would the firing of a domestic be subject to just-cause protection? Would this prevent a family from making decisions that are in the best interests of the children?
Certainly, we are moving this amendment because we are concerned about the wellbeing of families and the need to make sure that children are provided for.
The Chair: Thank you. It's 6 o'clock and we're adjourned till 3:30 tomorrow, or the end of routine proceedings.
The committee adjourned at 1801.