INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONCLUDED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONCLUDED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 179, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province.
On section 2:
The Deputy Chairman: We have completed subsection 2(5) and are proceeding to subsection (26).
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman. I wonder whether the Treasurer anticipates firing any of the members of the commission before the expiration of their terms. Why is this provision in the bill? Is he really that shaky?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, is the honourable member from the New Democratic Party suggesting that if we appointed a member to anything, anywhere, any time, this government should not have the right to appraise his performance and decide whether that person should remain a member?
Mr. McClellan: Now that the Treasurer has had the benefit of the supper hour, can he tell us who the members of the board will be?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Unlike the members opposite, outside of choosing the chairman, we felt we should await the passage of the bill before choosing the members.
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, if the Treasurer cannot tell us the rest of the members because he wanted the bill to be passed. why did he announce the chairman? Why is he so selective in his announcements?
Mr. Gordon: Because you have to have a leader before you can have followers.
Mr. Laughren: That is a corny line if I ever heard one.
lnterjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind all honourable members that we are in the midst of discussing an important bill.
Hon. F. S. Miller: If the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) sat back and thought about our choice of chairman, he would not assume we made the choice on the basis of political bias.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I find it rather difficult to believe that at this time, just two days from this bill becoming law, the Treasurer has not decided who the appointees are going to be. Even if he has not made the final decision, he is obviously considering the names of certain people. Perhaps the Treasurer might be willing to tell us whose names are in the hat at this time and who he is considering.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, the only two names in the hat right now are Swart and Lewis.
8:15 p.m.
The committee divided on whether subsection 2(6) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote.
Ayes 87; nays 21.
On section 3:
The Deputy Chairman: Hon. F. S. Miller moves that subsection 3(1) of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"The board may make rules for the conduct and management of its affairs and for the practice and procedure to be observed in matters coming before it and may require that any person seeking a determination by the board of any matter shall give written notice in such form and manner as the board specifies to such others as the board specifies."
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, the amendment simply clarifies that the board itself can make rules setting its own practice and procedure. This amendment permits the board to require a party making an application to the board to give notice to the other side.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, the amendment the government has offered does meet, in a very small way, an objection that was raised before our committee. The Treasurer has made the change providing that both sides must be notified if one side objects. The Treasurer points out that in the past the side being objected to, the other party in the objection, did not even need to be notified that an objection had been filed. However, we are not prepared to support this amendment.
We will be offering an amendment to subsection 3(4) which will take all the mays, ifs, buts and maybes out of the hands of the board and force the board to follow the Statutory Powers Procedures Act. We will not be supporting this amendment.
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I quite understand what the Treasurer has to say about his amendment. It is an obvious amendment that had to he made. A corporate lawyer drafted the bill, and subsection 3(1) said, "The board may make bylaws regulating its proceedings and generally for the conduct and management of the affairs of the board." They got their corporate world mixed up with their personal world. That is the language you will find in corporate law. You can look it up in the Business Corporations Act. So they come before the assembly now to give us some suggestion that they are going to correct it because the board is not a corporation. The Tory government always gets mixed up that way. If they have any language that really will fit something, if they can find it in the corporate world they will use it.
Undoubtedly some other lawyer who was more interested in individual persons was concerned with this amendment. The Treasurer comes before us to make this amendment without any explanation other than to suggest again in some pseudo-hypocritical way that this rectifies in some way the malicious nature of the whole of section 3 of the bill. But it does not, because it says "may" in the first place.
There is no reason for them to make any rules to arrange their affairs unless they wish to. There is no provision for publication of those rules. There is no provision which says other than the fact that a person making an application to the board must also give notice to somebody else. There is nothing to indicate any fairness will ever take place before that board. There is nothing to protect that degree of basic and fundamental fairness which is necessary.
We will not accept some minor amendment by the minister in a misguided way to improve an otherwise totally flawed bill. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, we will vote against it. Since it is a government amendment, they may want a 30-minute bell on this one, but we will stick to the rules, 10 minutes.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak very long to this, but I want to raise a point with the minister which underlines the unfairness of the whole section 3 and of the whole bill.
Under the amendment that has been put forward here, the board is given powers to require that any person seeking a determination of any matter before the board shall give written notice in such form and manner as the board specifies and to such others as the board specifies.
What that means is it is now open to the board -- it probably was open to them before, but it certainly is open to the board now -- to say, "The form and manner we specify is that if you want to complain about something before the board, you have to give reasons for making those complaints." It might even go further and say you have got to give reasons why you object to a judgement of the board when nobody will know why because reasons are not to be required from the board.
It seems to me to be grossly one-sided, as this whole bill is grossly one-sided, that the board now is being given power to require that anybody who wishes to launch an appeal or to come before it on any matter has got to give reasons for coming before it when the government quite specifically and explicitly exempts the board from having to give reasons for any of the arbitrary and unfair decisions it is going to give.
8:34 p.m.
The committee divided on Mr. F. S. Miller's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes, 63: nays, 46.
8:46 p.m.
The committee divided on whether subsection 3(1), as amended, should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 63; nays 48.
Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I have another question of the Treasurer. This section gives the board considerable latitude in being able to call upon the services and staff of the various ministries. I would like the Treasurer to tell this House if he has done any kind of assessment of the services and staff of the various ministries that would have to be seconded from time to time and, in particular, how many staff of the Ministry of Labour will be tied up in the operation of this wage control bill and in the disruption it is almost certain to cause in collective bargaining in Ontario, certainly in the arbitration and mediation fields.
Can the Treasurer tell us what plans have been discussed and what consultation has gone on with the Minister of Labour Mr. Ramsay as to what kind of numbers may be involved in his or in other ministries' staff in the operation of this bill?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, as I have said to this House before, as a member of a labour family I am glad I did not grow up with the suspicions --
Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: We cannot hear the Treasurer.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I could not hear him, either. You guys talk like a bunch of jackals.
Mr. Chairman: Avoid the interjections and speak to the bill.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I am glad that when I grew up in a family of labour people I did not grow up with the suspicion of the process that my colleague the member for Hamilton East did.
I do not have a preconceived plan. The section says that the board can, as it needs to, call upon the expertise of government. It will. That does not mean we have quantified people. We have a whole battery of ministries and individuals who, as the need arises, will offer their services free to the board.
8:50 p.m.
Mr. Mackenzie: I heard what the minister said. What I am asking him is what kind of discussions went on with the Minister of Labour over the problems that this bill may create? Surely there were some discussions, because you are taking a step here that really is going to have repercussions in terms of collective bargaining in Ontario. Now surely you or your people must have sat down and talked to the Minister of Labour. We were not able to get any answers in committee. I would simply like to know what kind of consultations went on with the Minister of Labour over the possible ramifications of this legislation.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the record will show that the Treasurer did not respond, so presume it means there was no consultation. I do not know if it will be possible to redirect, but I wonder if the Minister of Labour would give us some indication of how many people on his staff or in the ministry he thinks will have to seconded to this board, if the minister he willing to stand up in his place in this debate or if the Treasurer would allow it to be redirected to the Minister of Labour.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: The Treasurer was standing in his place. I would be interested to hear if he would be willing to redirect this to the Minister of Labour for his opinion or whether he has an opinion on it.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton East -- sorry, the Treasurer.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am on your right-hand side; some speakers are. It is traditional in this House, and the member knows it, for the minister responsible to answer on clause-by-clause. I shall, when the need arises, and I can simply say that this bill was completely and totally discussed within cabinet and bears the stamp and approval of cabinet, including the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Foulds: That being the case, Mr. Chairman, then the Treasurer should surely be able to answer the question that was just put by my colleague the member for Hamilton East, which he declined to answer a few moments ago. We would appreciate the answer.
Mr. Chairman: I cannot force the Treasurer to answer with the appropriate response you would like.
Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I think this is important. We have now had the same kind of absolute stonewalling we had in the committee. The Treasurer will not answer the question of what might be needed in terms of the services of the Ministry of Labour. Surely the Minister of Labour then has a responsibility to give some indication in this debate as to what he forsees as the problems with this particular legislation.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, since the Treasurer will not answer that, could we have an assurance from the Treasurer, as the minister in charge of the bill, that he will not in any way subvert the Ontario Labour Relations Board of any of its staff in the services of this restraint board?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, it has not been my nature to subvert anybody.
Mr. Renwick: Could I rephrase the question so I will not offend the Treasurer's susceptibilities? Will you leave the Ontario Labour Relations Board alone and not have any of that board or members of its staff or those engaged in the day-to-day work of the collective bargaining process in this province called in aid of this particular board?
Mr. Wildman: He has no answer.
Mr. Wildman: Any member of the House can participate in committee debate.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago the Treasurer indicated there had been full and total discussion of the legislation in cabinet. Now that the legislation is before us, surely the Treasurer can give us the reasons why the cabinet felt it necessary to bring in this particular clause and what boards, commissions, agencies and ministries the cabinet and he felt it would be necessary to have give their services to the Inflation Restraint Board. Surely that is not too difficult a question for the Treasurer. In other words, which ministries, which boards, which agencies and which commissions do you feel the Inflation Restraint Board is going to have to second personnel from?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I have no idea. I can only say that as people are needed, or advice is needed, the full gamut and range of government services are available.
Mr. Foulds: How in blazes can the man who is responsible for this legislation, who takes unto himself and solely unto himself the responsibility for answering in committee of the whole any questions on clause-by-clause, come before this House and ask us to pass a clause on which, when we ask legitimate questions, he says, "I have no idea"? Does the government have no idea of the implications of this clause? Does the government have no idea of the people it will need to second?
They have no idea, as my colleague the member for Hamilton East and my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) have pointed out many times, whether or not they will be subverting the integrity of personnel in the Ministry of Labour, particularly the Ontario Labour Relations Board, who, if seconded under this draconian clause, may destroy their credibility with the people they have to deal with in the future after this bill is sunsetted?
The Treasurer sits there as unconcerned as if he did not care and he does not care. He obviously does not care what this clause does to personnel in the civil service. He does not care what it does to personnel in the Ministry of Labour. I ask how he can express the approval of the Legislature for this kind of clause when he has that kind of uncaring and arrogant attitude?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I get a little tired of the attempt by my friends in the third party to assume that they have a monopoly on caring for the average worker. I have much more concern, and realistic concern, for them than they have. They are so tied up with their socialistic ideals they have no idea of what really works in society.
Mr. Mackenzie: There is absolutely no one involved in labour relations or industrial relations -- I am talking about the management side of it as well in this province -- who does not realize and does not know that this bill is going to have serious ramifications for the trade union movement.
I would ask, if we can get no answers from the Treasurer other than the claptrap we have heard, whether or not the Minister of Labour has been deliberately muzzled in this House?
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I think this is extremely serious. I will talk tomorrow in the next stage of the bill about the process we have gone through, but I would like to ask the Treasurer a question which I think is very important, particularly in the light of what happened to Donald MacAlpine, the forester in northern Ontario who is now being hounded by the government simply because he spoke the truth.
There are officials within the Ministry of Labour's Ontario Labour Relations Board who are committed to the cause of labour relations in Ontario, are committed to trying to ensure status for the labour movement, for working people in this province. That is part of their career, part of their job. In fact, that is in the preamble to the Labour Relations Act.
If individuals who hold those views are asked to come to work for this particular body and they refuse because of the principles to which they are committed, is the Treasurer going to hound them the way Mr. MacAlpine has been hounded by the Ministry of Natural Resources, or will the government give an undertaking here that they will not force anybody to work for them where it is against their conscience to do so?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I would like to think that in a democratic society we all have that right. You have the right to quit your job and leave if you do not like the rules.
Mr. Cassidy: Quit your job.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Just sit down, it is my turn.
Mr. Mackenzie: You are a disgrace.
Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend, I am not a disgrace. You guys over there impose more of a muzzle the way you react. You are like a bunch of monkeys. You all stand up and vote the same way all the time. You have absolutely no right of individual expression.
Mr. McClellan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, you will instruct the Treasurer to withdraw that statement, sir.
Mr. Mackenzie: It's an absolute disgrace.
Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I will not.
Mr. McClellan: Sir, I request that you ask the Treasurer to withdraw that statement.
9 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Treasurer, in the fullness of debate, I would ask you, in terms of parliamentary language, not to insult members of the assembly.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Monkeys are in order and donkeys are not. Is that the game?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I will not say they are monkeys but according to the spirit of evolution, they probably preceded me.
Mr. Laughren: You are a class act.
Mr. McClellan: Show a bit of dignity.
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I ask you to instruct the Treasurer to withdraw. Last week one of the Liberal members used a term in the Legislature, was ruled out of order and was thrown out of the Legislature.
Hon. F. S. Miller: To the Speaker.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was to the Speaker.
Mr. Cooke: The Speaker happens to be a member of the assembly.
Either the Treasurer withdraws it, or he withdraws himself.
Mr. Chairman: Under the circumstances I think he made his point. He said he will not use that term in reference to yourselves.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, we are asking you --
Ms. Copps: As the princess of innuendo, I am saying to you, don't be so "holier than thou."
Interjections.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, the remark made by the Treasurer was unparliamentary. We are asking you to instruct the Treasurer to withdraw the statement.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, those guys call me all kinds of names every day of the week and never expect me to bat an eye. The moment I say something they do not like, they stand up on a point of privilege.
Mr. Chairman: I cannot kick you out of the House. Mr. Treasurer, under the circumstances --
Mr. Laughren: Withdraw, withdraw.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I withdraw.
Mr. Chairman: All right, he has just acknowledged he has withdrawn. He has just withdrawn it. Continuing with subsection 3(2).
Mr. McClellan: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, on this side we do not call people personal names.
Hon. Mr. Pope: What nerve.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: What hypocrites.
Mr. Chairman: Order. Order.
Interjections.
Mr. McClellan: Well, we do not.
Mr. Chairman: Order. He has withdrawn it. He has acknowledged the withdrawal. Continuing with the section.
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: You are out of order. He has withdrawn it. We all acknowledge in the Legislature that he withdrew. Continuing on with subsection 3(2).
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, if I could get the Treasurer to clarify: Before his intervention, I heard him say something regarding a person who had worked for the labour movement for many years and then gone to do public service with the Ministry of Labour or the Ontario Labour Relations Board. He said if that person is asked to come to work for the Inflation Restraint Board according to the powers under this section, and refuses because of fundamental beliefs, the only recourse that person has is to quit the job with the public service. Is that what the Treasurer is saying?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, my friend likes to draw every comment to extremes. I pointed out --
Mr. Cassidy: That is exactly what you said.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not what he said.
Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I do not think I said that.
Mr. Cassidy: Yes, you did.
Hon. Mr. Miller: Most of us who work for an employer have a requirement to offer advice to that employer, to our superior. Often, I offer advice to my Premier (Mr. Davis) that is not accepted. I have an option, once that advice is accepted or not accepted, whether I can live with the conditions of the decision or not. It is as simple as that. That is all I am saying.
9:15 p.m.
The committee divided on whether subsection 3(2) shall stand as part of the bill which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 88; nays 22.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I am very glad the Treasurer withdrew his reference to all of the NDP as monkeys, but I think you should know that Erskine May on page 434 has an exhaustive list of animal references that are not permitted. I thought perhaps I should bring them to your attention. You may not call another member a dog, a jackass, a jackass behaving like a pup, cheeky, young, puppy, impertinent, rat or swine.
Mr. Chairman: Order. I would also like to point out to the member who so kindly pointed those phrases out to us that the chair has discretion if, in the chair's estimation, language is used in such a manner as to cause grave misconduct. In my estimation the Treasurer's comment was of such a nature that it incited the House. Carrying on to subsection 3(3).
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, would you include in that list the word "donkey" for which the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) was thrown out just last Thursday.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the NDP caucus has exactly the same problem with subsection 3(3) as it did with subsection 3(2). That is, members of the public service who ironically may be affected by this bill, who may have had their contracts broken by this bill, can be seconded to work for this board or commission; and by the Treasurer's outright statement earlier they could lose their jobs if they refused to do so.
We find that is totally outrageous and totally unacceptable. They should have the right to say they will not participate on a board which is constraining their civil rights. Unless the minister wishes to clarify that -- to say they will not have to do that this caucus will continue to oppose this section.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I have always assumed that amongst the staff of any ministry I have been in there are people of a number of political persuasions. In Ontario, ever since the last Liberal regime, we have made a habit of hiring people without political bias. I point out to you that many of them have personal convictions. They offer that advice to us, but one of the great securities of the civil service is you are not persecuted for your political beliefs. Therefore, you do not have to be of any one political persuasion to have your job. This means, however, that you must, after a reasonable argument, follow the general instructions of the government of the day no matter what its belief -- whether it is your belief, their belief or our belief. That is one of the challenges facing all of us.
9:30 p.m.
The committee divided on whether subsection 3(3) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 87; nays 22.
Mr. Chairman: Hon. F. S. Miller moves that subsection 3(4) of the bill he amended (a) by deleting "a" in the second and fourth lines and by inserting in lieu thereof in each instance the words "an oral": and (h) by inserting "oral" before "hearing" in the eighth line.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I will quickly say to those of you, such as yourself, who are lawyers, that in describing or explaining the government amendment here, we are dealing with the area of natural justice, which the Liberals were also concerned with.
As a nonlawyer, I am not particularly able to debate the point clearly, except to say that the change to this section will make clear that the board is not required to hold an oral hearing, but by implication it will be required to receive written representations before making a decision. In this regard, it will be subject to the common-law rules of natural justice and will avoid the implication of the present subsection that the board may decide a matter without considering submissions from the parties.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, to be brief, our party will oppose this amendment and is in opposition to subsection 3(4). not only as it was written before but also even with the amendment. At the appropriate time, we will be proposing our own amendment for consideration by the House. We believe this amendment does not go nearly far enough. By proposing our own amendment, which we hope individual members of the Conservative caucus will support, we hope to allow some justice and some equity to be written into this legislation before the guillotine comes down some 55 minutes from now.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, for the Treasurer to suggest by introducing the trivial amendment he has introduced that he is somehow providing for natural justice with respect to the conduct of the board is, I believe, to perpetrate a very serious misrepresentation before the House.
One does not have to be a lawyer to understand the meaning of natural justice, and the Treasurer should know perfectly well that there are a great many elements involved in that term, in that concept and in that idea, well beyond the notion that people can put in a written advice to the board, with the board then being able to say that constitutes a hearing.
That does not constitute a hearing, that does not constitute the basic elements of natural justice which we have been arguing about, which my friend the member for Riverdale spoke about on second reading and which we have been putting before the House both at committee stage, at second reading stage and now again today.
It is truly pathetic to see the government set up an administrative tribunal that has none of the elements of natural justice, none of the elements of due process which, surely to goodness in 1982 in Ontario, are fundamental and basic to what it means to be a citizen of this province and what it means to be a government of this province. The government should be ashamed of introducing the kind of amendments it is introducing to this section.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief comment. What the Treasurer has done is to preclude further the exercise of the rights under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. That is what he has provided by proposing this amendment that the hearings wherever referred to in this section are oral hearings. It makes, if anything, the exclusion of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act more effective than it was without the amendment. It has not assisted; it has done exactly the reverse.
One does not particularly need to be a lawyer to understand that the hearings contemplated under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act are oral hearings. What this amendment does is make it abundantly clear that the discretion vested in the board is that it need not hold that kind of hearing. It is to make it perfectly clear that there will he no oral hearings, because the amendment would mean that subsection 3(4) in its entirety, if this amendment is carried, will read as follows:
"The board may, in its discretion where it considers it desirable to do so, hold an oral hearing and where the board does so, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies, except that, whether or not the board holds an oral hearing, the board is not required to give reasons for any final order, decision or determination made by it, but notwithstanding the Statutory Powers Procedure Act or any other rule of law, the board is not required to hold an oral hearing before making any order, decision or determination that it is authorized to make."
Instead of bringing into play some of the elements of natural justice, as we thought the government might be moved to do, it is made more exclusively clear that there is no obligation of any kind upon this board to adhere to even the minor, minimum rules of natural justice.
9:50 pm.
The committee divided on Mr. F. S. Miller's amendment to subsection 3(4), which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 64; nays 45.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, looking at the clock and knowing the motions before us, I wonder if I could ask for the unanimous consent of the parties to move to subsection 8(2).
Mr. Wildman: No.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Just let me explain for a second. Recognizing that we will not get there fast enough, we have a particular case in Etobicoke where public health nurses signed a contract on the day that we read this bill for the first time, and I wanted to propose an amendment that would honour that contract. If we do not get to that subsection tonight, we will not be able to honour that contract. No matter what other part we do not get to, I would like to have honoured that contract.
The Deputy Chairman: Is there unanimous agreement to proceed to section 8?
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, keeping in mind that we have an amendment to propose which would do just that to subsection 8(2), we have no disagreement in allowing the bill to move to section 8.
Mr. Mackenzie: We have no objection to the arrangement.
On section 8:
The Deputy Chairman: Hon. F. S. Miller moves that subsection 8(2) be amended by striking out "21st" in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof "22nd."
Motion agreed to.
On section 3:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 3(4) of the bill, as amended, be struck out and the following substituted therefore:
"(4) Before making an order, decision or determination that the board is authorized to make, the board shall hold a hearing and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies to such a hearing.
"(5) Upon the petition of any interested person filed with the clerk of the executive council within 30 days after the date of any order, decision or determination of the board, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may,
"(a) confirm, vary or rescind the whole or any part of the order, decision or determination, or
"(b) require the board to hold a new public hearing into the whole or any part of the matter in respect of which the order, decision or determination of the board was made, and the decision of the board after the public hearing ordered under clause (b) is not subject to petition under this subsection.
"(6) Any person who has filed a petition under subsection (5) may at any time withdraw the petition by filing a notice of withdrawal with the clerk of the executive council;
"And that subsections (3), (5) and (6) as printed be renumbered accordingly."
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late, and it is a delight to get to the second of our amendments, having got to the first just a minute ago.
This is, in the view of our party, a very important amendment and one which we hope individual members of the government caucus will support. We also hope that the members of the New Democratic Party, who have said throughout these days and weeks that there was no amendment that could improve this legislation, will also support it and will recognize that our amendment, if it carries, will make a great improvement.
I believe the reason it would be an improvement is obvious. In asking for this tremendous sacrifice of the public sector in bringing in this legislation --
Mr. Laughren: It doesn't seem to bother you that much. Does it really bother you? Do you really see it as a big sacrifice?
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Wrye: -- it seems to me the government has an obligation to at least ensure that due process is put in place so that those who believe they have been treated in an unjust manner will be able to go to the board, will be heard by the board at a hearing and when the board makes its determination on the matter, that it shall be telling both sides not only the determination it has made but also the reasons for the determination.
The other subsection, number 5, which we have added, allows for a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, allows an appeal, because our party believes that the right of appeal to cabinet of any decision of the board is an absolutely critical one. We do not believe the board ought to be the final arbiter of these matters.
There remains the possibility that the board, in its wisdom, could make a wrong determination and that indeed it does not treat one side or the other in a just manner. We simply believe there ought to be an opportunity for those interested to file a petition and to have the cabinet review any order of the board before that matter is dealt with in a final manner.
We believe this is one of the very important amendments to the bill and we hope others will be placed in the next few minutes. With that in mind, I will let my colleagues speak on this matter.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of our caucus to support the amendment put forward by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye). Over the course of time in the debate, at great length on this bill, we have tried to emphasize that even this government should not violate the principles of natural justice. Certainly it should not violate them in the way this bill violates them and, in accordance with tradition that is about 10 years old in this assembly now, it should not have gone back upon a whole legislative history of the final development of procedural rules in this assembly which would protect the very basic and fundamental right.
I attempted earlier in the debate in this House to state very clearly and in very simple terms the basic and fundamental right. It was stated in a case that I need not make a reference to, and it does not matter what kind of a board it is, I simply quote, "In such cases the board of education will have to ascertain the law and also to ascertain the facts and I need not add that in doing either they must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is a duty lying upon everyone who decides anything."
I am indebted to the leader of this party for bringing to my attention a rather picturesque statement of that particular right contained in Wade's Administrative Law, fourth edition, which the House may find of interest. It is stated in this book to be a nice example of the old conception of natural justice as divine and eternal law. Mr. Justice Fortescue, deciding a case with respect to a scholar at the University of Cambridge who had been deprived of his degrees, described the principles of natural justice in this way:
"I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man that upon such an occasion even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam.' says God, 'where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?'" The same question, of course, was put to Eve.
10 p.m.
They say the tradition is that ancient, and what the government is doing in this bill, if it does not accept this amendment, is denying for all time the history and the tradition of this assembly. It will mean that whenever the government of the day wishes to do so, it can set aside the principles that were developed through the McRuer commission inquiry into civil rights in the province. It will set aside the bills that were enacted in the assembly 10 years ago. Almost 10 years ago now, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act was brought into force in the province.
I need not elaborate upon the particular provisions of natural justice. It is sufficient to say they cover the whole gamut of all the matters we consider to be essential for the protection of individual rights, particularly as they relate to contractual rights and as they relate to the intrusion of government upon those contractual rights.
The act sets out very clearly the kinds of minimum procedural requirements or minimum rules that are prescribed: parties to a proceeding in which the hearing is to be held, the procedure before hearing, a notice of hearing, contents and form of notice of hearing, service of notice of hearing, impartiality of members of the tribunal, information to be furnished to the parties before a hearing, procedure at a hearing, oral hearing, order of proceeding of hearing, nonappearance of party, hearing in public, counsel for parties at hearing, rights of parties at hearing, power of tribunal to summon witnesses, protection of witnesses at hearings, evidence at hearings, adjournments, recording of evidence, maintenance of order, power to prevent abuse, making the decision, legal grounds upon which a decision is based, decision in writing, reasons for the decision, notice of the decision, record of proceeding, and so on.
There are very elaborate rules. They were developed by this assembly. They were developed by the government under the McRuer commission on civil rights. Here we have this bill in which the government does not even have the grace to admit those minimum rules. I am pleased we are supporting the amendment that is before us. I hope that before the guillotine descends upon this bill the government will see fit to permit this amendment to pass.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, we will not be able to accept this amendment. The reason is that there is no appeal right now from arbitration awards or decisions of administrative tribunals like the Ontario Labour Relations Board. This board's decisions will be of the same character. Like the labour relations hoard, the Inflation Restraint Board may reconsider, revoke or amend any decision it makes. In most cases. the parties will be bound by the board's decisions for only one year, and after that the normal dispute resolution process will resume.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, speaking briefly to the amendment, I am extremely disappointed that the Treasurer has indicated his own opposition to this amendment, because it is an extremely good amendment that really addresses something that consistently came before the committee in the public hearings. Members who had the opportunity to sit in from time to time, and members who received representations in written form from the various groups who appeared before the committee, consistently found that these groups had asked for some kind of appeal process, for the opportunity to have a hearing, for the opportunity to have reasons enunciated for the decisions made by the Inflation Restraint Board and for the right of appeal from any decision by the cabinet.
Many people expressed various concerns about the bill. Some placed more emphasis in one area than in others. Many, particularly those most vehemently opposed to the bill, said the only solution was for the government to withdraw the bill from consideration in the House. They were adamant about that. They were very careful to indicate to members of the committee, and to all members of the House through written representations, that an area that particularly irked them was the lack of opportunity for a hearing of some kind.
Even the federal Anti-Inflation Board, which was set up in 1975, provided for a hearing process for appeals to that board. If there were groups that thought they were hard done by because of a board ruling, they had an opportunity to appeal, to bring further evidence before the court, so that the board would be able to determine if it had considered all the relevant facts and if it had erred in its decision.
It seems to me there should be that right for the groups, whether it be the groups who are involved in the education process, as I am involved in terms of my role as opposition critic in the field of education, or others involved in the public service or who come under the jurisdiction of this bill. Since this is, in essence, only temporary legislation. we feel appeals should be allowed. I suppose it is unfair to compare it, as the Treasurer has, with other more permanent tribunals. When people have decisions rendered, they like to know the reasons for those decisions. For a board simply to be able to make a ruling without providing the various reasons for the ruling is surely unfair to the group that is being directly affected by that ruling.
In this era, when we are looking towards more freedom of information -- indeed we have a minister in the government, the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling), whose responsibility it is to eventually carry that bill when it comes before the House, and some considerable work was done previously by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), who enunciated certain policies in that regard -- surely, in keeping with that thrust, the government should be prepared to entertain favourably an amendment of this kind. I am certain there are members of the government caucus, if not the Treasurer himself, who, having listened to those who made representations and taking into consideration their own views in terms of the process, would want to ensure there was a chance for appeal.
We also have a circumstance, as a result of an early provision in the bill, where there is only one person out of the three on the Inflation Restraint Board who can investigate and render a decision. That one individual does not require his or her decision to be ratified by the entire Inflation Restraint Board. For that reason, it militates even further in favour of an appeal, at which time all members of the board would have a chance to deal with a decision that was appealed, a decision that was made by one member of the board alone.
Once the board has made a decision, and the board is all powerful according to this legislation, our view is that, first, it should allow for a hearing, and second, it should have to state very clearly, preferably in writing, the reasons for the decision rendered. We also feel that if that decision is not acceptable to those being directly affected, there should be the right of appeal to the cabinet from a decision of the board.
As everyone is aware, there are appeal provisions in the municipal circumstances, if we think of the Ontario Municipal Board, for instance. After a city council or regional council has made a decision, for example. there is a mechanism for an appeal to the OMB. Subsequent to that, if the OMB makes a decision, often that decision stands. But if there are circumstances which could he looked upon favourably by the cabinet, which is the ultimate decision maker in this province, there are those who are inclined to take the option of making an appeal to the cabinet and allowing the cabinet the opportunity to rule on it.
10:10 p.m.
Our amendment would allow for an appeal to the cabinet of any decision of the Inflation Restraint Board. Therefore, if the Inflation Restraint Board had not taken into consideration all the arguments made, or if the groups directly affected had some new evidence to introduce that had not been taken into consideration by that one member -- in theory -- of the Inflation Restraint Board, then the cabinet, after evaluating the presentation made in the form of an appeal, would have the opportunity to render an opinion.
I would think government members would again show the same spirit of co-operation and goodwill which was just expressed in going to section 8 and agreeing to an amendment which we, in the official opposition, had indicated we were going to put and which the Treasurer kindly incorporated in this legislation as an amendment of his own. Surely the government members, especially at this time of year, will be in a co-operative mood and would want to ensure that one of the most objectionable parts of this bill -- and there are many parts which are objectionable to those who have made presentations -- lies in this section. It permits neither a hearing nor written reasons to he put forward for the decisions made nor does it permit an appeal to he made in regard to this section.
It would seem to me even those who are adamantly opposed to this legislation -- and there are many who are going to he opposed to many other aspects of it -- at least would have one portion to cling to, one avenue of appeal. While finding many other areas to be objectionable they would still be able to come to the Inflation Restraint Board.
I think, for instance, of the public health nurses in Niagara who would be able to come to the Inflation Restraint Board for a hearing. The Treasurer is aware they have made this request in good faith to him, through me and through others, to have the opportunity to be heard before the Inflation Restraint Board. Their particular circumstances surely are unique in Ontario. They are a group which has been on strike since May 1982 and whose contract had expired in the middle of February. We are not talking about a militant group. In fact we are talking about a group which was prepared to accept binding arbitration as a resolution of its problem as opposed to going on strike.
Allowing this amendment to the bill would give them an avenue to present their case through a hearing. When the board should render a decision, they would know why the decision was made one way or the other and if they were dissatisfied with that decision they would be in a position at that time to appeal to the cabinet.
A number of people in the cabinet would be aware of the special circumstances that exist for these people, and perhaps some who would listen to other members of the governing party who had been in the committee when that presentation was made on that Wednesday. Others from the Niagara Peninsula -- two government members in particular: the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) and the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) -- are very familiar with the circumstances faced by these people.
If an adverse decision were rendered by the board, with the reasons given in writing, those members would want an opportunity for this group and any others who might find themselves in similar circumstances to make a presentation to the cabinet. The cabinet, in its wisdom, knowing those special circumstances and discussing them with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay),who is familiar with the circumstances, with the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and perhaps having the input of others who appeared before the committee in addition to the group directly affected, would then have the opportunity to seek some form of justice under a bill which they would object to in many parts.
So I make the appeal to the members of the government, despite the fact the Treasurer has indicated his opposition to the --
Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The witching hour is just about upon us. I want to understand what will now happen. I take it that unless there is a vote now held on the amendment that has been proposed by the member for Windsor-Sandwich, if 10:15 arrives there will he no vote on this amendment. Am I correct in that?
If I am correct that no vote on this amendment can be held if 10:15 arrives, could I ask that the question be now put by moving the previous question?
Mr. Sweeney: The question shall be now put.
Mr. Chairman: Right. All those in favour of the question please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay." In my opinion the nays have it.
An hon. member: You're deaf.
Mr. Chairman: It's your amendment.
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: The question on the amendment can now be put.
All those in favour of the amendment please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The bells should not be ringing. I would like to point out to the House at this time that it is my interpretation of the government motion passed on Thursday, December 9, that the chair is obliged now to put all questions necessary to dispose of each section, and at this time I will verbally put all sections.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: You have undertaken a rather convoluted procedure in the 30 seconds before 10:15 to bring the amendment before the House. We want to support the amendment; but if you are putting all the other motions together, we will be opposing those because we would not have an opportunity --
Mr. Chairman: Will you be opposing your own amendment?
Mr. Nixon: No.
Mr. Chairman: No. Well, under those circumstances I am going to be obliged to verbally put all sections from subsection 3(4), the amended section, and then the unamended section, at which time, when we have concluded the schedule, the preamble and the bill to be reported, we will have a 10-minute bell to call in all the members and then have standing votes. That is my interpretation.
Mr. Wildman: Are we voting on the amendment or not?
Mr. Chairman: No, because we have reached 10:15 of the clock.
Mr. Sweeney: You put the question before 10:15.
Interjections.
Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: It was my understanding that the call for the question to be put came before 10:15.
Mr. Chairman: No, it did not.
In an attempt to put all the questions in a logical order, the first thing I am going to have to ask is, all those in favour of the amended section proposed by the member for Windsor-Sandwich please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Now we have to do subsection 3(4).
Mr. Wildman: Wait a minute. Hasn't that been defeated, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: That has been defeated.
Now we are going to do subsection 3(4), as amended.
On all those subsections remaining in section 3 that is, subsections 3(5) and 3(6) -- all those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Mr. Chairman: Shall all of sections 4 to 37 carry?
10:20 p.m.
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: When we call the bells, is it your intention to have a vote on each section?
Mr. Chairman: A stand-up vote on each section, but only one 10-minute bell.
Mr. Cooke: Including the amendment?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
10:31 p.m.
The committee divided on Mr. Wrye's amendment to subsection 3(4),which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 51; nays 66.
Mr. Chairman: The amendment is lost.
The committee divided on whether section 3, as amended, should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.
The committee divided on whether section 4 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 95; nays 22.
The committee divided on whether section 5 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 95; nays 22.
The committee divided on whether section 6 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 7 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 8, as amended, should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 9 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 66; nays 51.
The committee divided on whether section 10 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 11 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 95; nays 22.
The committee divided on whether section 12 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 66; nays 51.
The committee divided on whether section 13 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 14 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 15 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 95; nays 22,
The committee divided on whether section 16 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 17 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
10:40 p.m.
The committee divided on whether section 18 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 19 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 20 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I did hear you call that a vote had been carried but I did not hear you call the numbers and it is apparent on this side that not all members are voting. It seems to me there is a standing requirement that if members are present in the chamber they must vote.
Mr. Chairman: Order. Thank you.
The committee divided on whether section 21 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 95; nays 22.
The committee divided on whether section 22 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 23 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 24 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 25 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 66; nays 51.
The committee divided on whether section 26 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 27 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 28 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 95; nays 22.
The committee divided on whether section 29 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 30 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 31 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 32 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 33 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 34 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 35 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 36 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 37 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether the schedule should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 95; nays 22.
The committee divided on whether Bill 179, as amended, should be reported, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 66; nays 51.
Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the committee of the whole House report one bill with certain amendments.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:47 p.m.