PUBLIC SECTOR PRICES AND COMPENSATION REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
PUBLIC SECTOR PRICES AND COMPENSATION REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 111, An Act to provide for the Review of Prices and Compensation in the Public Sector and for an orderly Transition to the Resumption of full Collective Bargaining.
On section 8:
The Deputy Chairman: We have been progressing very speedily and I do believe we are at section 8. The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) has an amendment to section 8. Do I have a copy?
Mr. Foulds: I believe it is in front of the chairman. I must apologize to the chair. The amendments as they were forwarded were sort of numbered wrong.
The Deputy Chairman: No, they are here.
Mr. Foulds: It is the one numbered seven, even though it is not on that section. It is on section 8.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that subsection 8(1) be amended by deleting the words "fact-finding" in line two.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased this evening to be speaking on this amendment with the government House leader (Mr. Wells) substituting for the provincial Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and the provincial Treasurer's officials; as the provincial Treasurer speeds in his government limousine, chauffeur-driven, down to the Legislature to meet his commitments here this evening.
It did strike me that the present government House leader, who was the Minister of Education during the development of the teacher-board negotiation bill, would know a little bit more about fact-finding than does his colleague, the Treasurer.
It is interesting and illustrative of the ignorance with which the Ministry of Treasury and Economics approached this bill that it managed to include in the definition of arbitration the term "fact-finding."
As I recall, and I believe it is some eight years since we went through the processes of Bill 100, as it was then known, which had to do with the teacher-board negotiating procedure; and because teachers were afraid of being thrown fully into the labour relations fray, they felt it might be nice, in the process, to have what was called "fact-finding" before there was a final determination on the contract, whether it came to the strike vote or whether they decided themselves to go to normal arbitration or to final-offer selection arbitration.
I am certainly glad to see that the ministry officials are hustling in with the appendages, the illustrations and the information for the government House leader, who is probably as capable as the Treasurer of handling this bill.
Mr. Wrye: Probably more capable.
Mr. Foulds: On this section, more capable, even though he has been thrown over the hill or told to go over the hill on rather short notice.
In any event, I would like an explanation. Why the devil did they include the word "fact-finding" in subsection 8(1)? Surely that will lead to some terrible inconsistencies when it comes to teacher-board negotiations. Surely the ministry and the government should accept my amendment and delete the word "fact-finding," because the fact-finding process has nothing to do with arbitration.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the debate on this section of the bill. Speaking to the amendment proposed by my friend the member for Port Arthur on behalf of my party, we support this amendment, should this be all we can do to section 8 of the bill. It is the view of our party that section 8 of the bill ought to be completely dropped from the legislation as it gets us into the whole area of arbitration.
It is rather ironic, as the member for Port Arthur has pointed out, that the Treasurer and his officials who wish to start a minor pilot project would make this section so all-encompassing as to capture the fact-finding stage. That makes no sense whatsoever. I join the member in hoping the government House leader or, at the appropriate time, the Treasurer himself might have some explanation.
I want to return to the general thrust of some of the remarks we on this side have been making in the last few sessions, particularly last Tuesday night, and discuss my general opposition to the overall thrust of what is in here. It takes a very dangerous and ill-thought-out step by involving us as a Legislature and the public sector of this province in an arbitration process during a transition year. Even worse, it is during a time when we are asking them to continue to show restraint; and finally, at a time when --
Mr. Foulds: Here comes Santa himself.
Mr. Wrye: I want to welcome the Treasurer back to the House. I am sure his driver is currently accepting a ticket from the Ontario Provincial Police since he appears to have arrived at amazing speed. I am sure the Treasurer will be very quickly made aware of some of the concerns we have with subsection 8(1) which we are now discussing. The issue is fact-finding.
While we are certainly not changing the concerns we have already expressed over the totality of the issue, both parties on this side would like to have some explanation from the Treasurer as to why fact-finding has been quite specifically included in subsection 8(1) of the legislation.
8:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, since I was already prepared to answer these arguments, I will take a minute to explain. As my friend the member for Port Arthur indicated, he and I and some other members of this House had quite a bit to do with the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.
If you would refer to that particular piece of legislation, section 21 is the section containing matters that may be considered by the fact-finder:
"(a) the conditions of employment in occupations outside the public teaching sector;
"(b) the effect of geographic or other local factors on the terms and conditions of employment;
"(c) the cost to the board of the proposal of either party;
"(d) the interests and welfare of the public."
So what we see here is that the cost to the employer of the proposals of either party and the interests and welfare of the public are very closely related to the kind of things that sections 9 and 10 do in this particular piece of legislation. Therefore, fact-finders are included in section 8.
In fact, the only pieces of legislation in this province that already call for fact-finders are the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act and the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act. Since provisions very similar to those called for in this bill already apply in general legislation pertaining to those two acts, fact-finders are included in sections 9 and 10 of this bill. Of course, since fact-finders' reports are not binding, section 6 of this act, which calls for filing with the Inflation Restraint Board, does not apply to fact-finders.
So I think it is very consistent -- it is certainly not inconsistent with other legislation -- that fact-finders should be included. It is all right for my friend to argue that these criteria should not apply to all this group, but since fact-finders are now charged under the section to take costs into account this just re-emphasizes that point and does not in fact change the way fact-finders will do their business under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act at all.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has just made my point. If in fact-finding the fact-finder has to do all this stuff about costing the agreement, the impact on the community and all that, why do we need it in the act?
Second, there are other sections of this act that affect the arbitration process. The government is defining "arbitration" not to include but to mean fact-finding. There is a parallelism in the wording that arbitration includes every procedure for arbitration. Fact-finding or final-offer selection: those are parallel things. The minister is saying that fact-finding is parallel to arbitration and to final-offer selection. He is saying, then, that as this legislation affects arbitration, it affects all fact-finding. That is just nuts. That is wrong. That is bad legislation.
I am not being histrionic about it. Fact-finding is not a form of arbitration: final-offer selection is. The fact that it is part of the process leading, perhaps, to a collective agreement that can be arrived at either by agreement of the parties, by a strike and then agreement or by arbitration should not mean that fact-finding is included as equalling arbitration.
That is my argument, and I think it is fairly simple and straightforward. I believe the minister is wrong and I am right.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, it is not a case of being wrong or right. What is really being suggested here is that, first of all, the words "arbitrator," "fact-finder" and "final-offer selection" are not being repeated all the time; this is just defining arbitration.
Mr. Foulds: Right.
Hon. Mr. Wells: What it is setting out is that the criteria that are provided for in sections 9 and 10 are to be --
Mr. Foulds: No, no.
Hon. Mr. Wells: In sections 9 and 10 where the word "arbitration" is used it means a fact-finding report. I agree with my friend that a fact-finding report is not a binding report; it is a report that is made after a fact-finder has attempted to bring the parties together. Under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act he has to make that report, which may be made public at times.
This goes even further than the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. It says this kind of information must also be provided in the fact-finder's report. The cost has to be addressed explicitly in a fact-finder's report. One can disagree that should be in there, but that is what is being suggested. That is not inconsistent with an arbitration report also suggesting the cost, because it may be that the fact-finding report will be finally accepted in the settlement of the agreement. We feel it is vital that information should be in the fact-finder's report.
Mr. Foulds: That is exactly the point I am making. The fact-finder does not suggest, issue, dictate or come up with an agreement. The problem with using the word "fact-finding" is that fact-finding involves a report. An arbitration award imposes an agreement. There is a fundamental difference not only in process but in law and the government is absolutely wrong to include fact-finding in the definition of arbitration.
If the government wants to say that a fact-finder's report under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act should include the criteria in this bill, then I am afraid if the government is going to be a decent lawmaker it is going to have to bring in an amendment to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. They cannot do it this way. If they do it this way they are fundamentally wrong. They are wrong in their definition. I am not going to give up on this point until the minister gives me a better explanation than he has.
The government simply cannot put into law a definition that is wrong, even if they are trying to do something by the back door in a different act. If they want to do it with fact-finding in the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act then they can do it, but they have to bring in an amendment to that act and they are going to have to wait till the spring to do that.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, if the former Minister of Education wants to respond to that I do not want to break into the train of this discussion. Frankly, I think the member for Fort William --
Mr. Foulds: Port Arthur.
Mr. Nixon: -- or one of those places -- has a good point. Does the minister want to respond to what he said?
Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not have any copies of fact-finding reports here. My recollection is that under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act a fact-finder's report might provide the basis for settlement.
Mr. Foulds: It might.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Right. Then what is in --
Mr. Nixon: That is not arbitration.
Hon. Mr. Wells: I know it is not arbitration as such. What we are suggesting is that same provision that is asked for in arbitration, the provision stated in section 10 that "the arbitrator shall consider the employer's ability to pay in the light of existing provincial fiscal policy," something of that nature has to appear in the fact-finder's report. I do not see that as inconsistent.
One can oppose that in any type of report, but the suggestion is that piece of information should also be in there if the fact-finder is suggesting something for settlement, which, if accepted by the parties, could settle that dispute. It is like a voluntary arbitration. An arbitrator arbitrates and both parties are forced to accept it. A fact-finder does voluntary arbitration and says, "Here is how I think you fellows could settle this dispute." It is the same kind of judgement except it is not forced on the people.
What he has to do under Bill 111 is include within it this piece of information, so both sides and the public, when the report is made public, can see that piece of information. I could even say that might help settle the dispute.
Interjection.
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Foulds: I think the point my colleague the member for Hamilton East makes is that the government is then imposing limitations on fact-finders that it has not done in the past, although it has said generally they do that. I suggest to the minister very strongly and quite sincerely that he is not going to get through this section tonight if he does not give me a better explanation. I mean that. If he takes a look at section 9, he will see immediately the problem I have. If he tries to substitute the word "fact-finder" where he sees the word "arbitrator" in section 9, he will see it cannot apply and therefore arbitration cannot be defined as fact-finding.
The minister is running roughshod over the collective bargaining process anyway. Let us admit that. He is fundamentally infringing on all kinds of collective bargaining rights and arbitration rights. I understand that. I understand the Tory majority is going to ram the legislation through. But I suggest to the minister that it is instructive just how badly flawed this bill is with the stupidity of the wording in including "fact-finding" as a definition for arbitrator.
The minister used to be responsible for education. The minister who piloted the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act through the Legislature has just told us it is something like arbitration, but it is voluntary. There is an enormous difference. There is no such thing as voluntary arbitration. There is a voluntary process for choosing arbitration, but once one has chosen it there is no going back. In fact-finding there is going back, there is discussion and there are more processes.
I say to the minister, and I echo the words of my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), that the clause is a lousy clause. We will be voting against the clause as a whole. But I suggest to the minister that clause, lousy though it is in principle, at least should be drafted properly.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there is not a great deal that can be added which the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has not already said. There is not much more to be said on it. The honourable member does not think it should apply to the fact-finding process and we think it should because of the process the minister explained a moment ago. If the member wants to suggest that costing and consideration of the ability to pay in this area is not appropriate, so be it.
Mr. Foulds: I did not suggest that, Mr. Chairman. I think it is inappropriate, but I did not suggest that; so the minister should not put words in my mouth. He should not arrive here late and put words in my mouth.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, it is our intention to support the amendment that is put forward and to vote against sections 8, 9 and 10 in the event that the amendments already proposed and those that will be proposed by my colleague are not accepted.
We should recall that, probably more than anything else, these three sections are one of the most contentious areas in the whole bill. My own feeling is that the provisions of the three sections -- we are talking about section 8 but it leads into the other two sections -- are some kind of sop to municipal bodies that are concerned about arbitration. The Treasurer must echo that concern to some extent, having seen that in the past the arbitration awards in some specific instances have been more generous than some of the municipal officials would have liked.
I do not think there is any doubt that there have been a few occasions when arbitration awards have been unnecessarily generous. The minister may recall one specific instance where the Legislature took action to end a garbage strike in Metropolitan Toronto. Part of the bill established an arbitrator, who was then appointed. The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who is now giving his personal advice to the Treasurer, and I were particularly interested in this because it happened to be the late judge from Brant county, a very fine gentleman indeed, who was appointed the arbitrator.
The minister may recall that in those circumstances the arbitrator awarded an amount that was even in excess of the demands of the striking garbage collectors. The action of the Legislature in those circumstances could have been seen by certain people as resulting in an unnecessarily generous award. I am sure you are aware from talking to municipal officials in your own area, Mr. Chairman, that on occasion these people have felt arbitration awards have been overly generous.
I do not think it should be our role, either in this bill or in any other of our actions, however, to hamper the freedom of the arbitrator. The minister, who is very careful about these things, can argue with a certain group of people that he is moving to support their contentions that arbitration awards have been too generous or perhaps could be too generous. If he is talking to others, however, who perhaps are not concerned that way, he can say these provisions do not hamper the arbitrator in any significant way; all he has to do is be sure of the facts provided and give thought to the ability of the municipality to raise money.
If it is a municipal employer or school board in those instances, it would be very difficult to determine what the ability of the employer or those limits might he. A hospital board is pretty well restricted, however, to the actual grants that are payable by the Ministry of Health. Both the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Treasurer are very familiar with how those grants are calculated and established.
Some hospitals, for example, are treated very generously indeed. The hospital in which the Treasurer has a permanent suite reserved in case he ever needs any quick resuscitation is even now undertaking a huge expansion, much against the wishes of the people in the area. That is another matter, of course, because the doctors of the Doctors Hospital want it and therefore they are going to get it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You supported it.
Mr. Nixon: My first son was born in the Doctors Hospital when it was a real hospital, when it was a real community hospital.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you want that in Hansard?
Mr. Nixon: It is a marvellous public hospital, but in those days it was just a nice old home. I am very proud that our son was born there and received good care, probably at least as good as would be received now.
The Treasurer, doing his undoubted best, can say to those people who are worrying about arbitration awards being too rich that he is moving to curtail that to some extent; and to those people who feel they are going to have the right to strike taken from them by act of this Legislature that nothing in this provision interferes with whatever the arbitrator might want to do in the long run.
Personally, I am beginning to change my views on this matter. The Treasurer, although he did not respond very much to the comment, is aware of this fact. It might even keep him awake at nights; I do not know.
It seems to me more and more that this House is going to be called upon to settle strikes that have to be settled rather than opt for more and more arbitration, particularly if we are going to move, as the Treasurer intends to move, to appear to be restricting the arbitration in some small degree. My own feeling is that as long as this House is going to remove the right to strike from firemen, policemen and hospital workers, we must leave the arbitration powers unrestricted.
If we are prepared to restrict arbitration we are doing what the Premier (Mr. Davis) says we cannot do; that is, we are trying to have it both ways.
That is my own personal feeling. My views have changed on this, and I suppose they are gradually changing.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Since second reading.
Mr. Nixon: Not at all. On second reading, I said we should be moving towards returning the right to strike to everybody, with the responsibility residing in this House to see that services for the good of the community are properly supported. I said that and it was quoted in the Star. I have never had anybody tell me I was right, but I have had several letters telling me I was wrong. I still believe it.
I would say that in the future the Treasurer is going to have to advise his colleagues that he is not going to be able to restrict the rights of the arbitrator while he continues to remove the right to strike and at the same time use his strange but undoubted powers to restrict the wage improvements that would normally go with normal free collective negotiations.
We on this side are offering amendments and are supporting the amendment of the New Democratic Party in this regard. There may be some other amendments to improve the arbitration sections, but we believe they should not be carried. While we will be voting for the amendments, we will be voting against the sections if it turns out the amendments are not accepted.
8:30 p.m.
I can understand the argument put forward by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the former Minister of Health and former Minister of Education, when he feels that fact-finding could be included and the requirements for the fact-finder to have all the information about salaries and so on put before him so it becomes public.
I can see the argument he is putting forward. However, we believe that arbitration is an entirely different approach from so-called fact-finding, that this phrase should not be in section 8 and that section 8 should not be in the bill.
Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, this sections leads into section 9 and to sections on arbitration. I am darned sure the minister has not lost the least bit of sleep over what he is doing with this piece of legislation. I suspect the restrictions to arbitration are more of a sop to the Premier than they are to anybody else.
However, I think what the minister has to try to understand is that what he is doing with these sections is the most fundamental interference with collective bargaining we have seen in this province. Very frankly, it is also breaking faith with hospital workers, with policemen, with firemen -- people who do not have the right to strike and for whom arbitration has been their route.
It is wrong. I think it is rather stupid. What I have difficulty in understanding is the inclusion of fact-finding in section 8. Unless I am missing the point altogether in section 8, the minister is lumping together arbitration, fact-finding and final-offer selection. It says in subsection 8(1): "…this part applies, and 'arbitrator' has a corresponding meaning." What it is saying is that "fact-finder" has a corresponding meaning with "arbitrator."
I would like the minister to respond to me. He is going to set guidelines and give instructions as to limits and as to how the arbitrators can rule. Is he going to do the same thing to fact-finders, who are supposed to just dig up the information, get at the truth and supply the information?
If the minister is going to rig the books, so to speak, or rig what the fact-finders tell him, then he has it licked before he ever starts. I think the inclusion of fact-finders in the section is just plain stupid.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I want to add a word of reiteration to the Treasurer, and I would like to hear his response to it. What is said in here, and my colleague the House leader for our party has put it well, refers further to sections 9 and 10. Very clearly, to substitute the word "fact-finder" for "arbitrator" in sections 9 and 10 leads us into an almost impossible situation.
The fact of the matter is that the fact-finder is playing a very different role in a very different job from that of the arbitrator. This is exactly the problem we are into with this whole ill-thought-out, quickly conceived kind of solution.
I do not want to anticipate, but I know my friend the member for Port Arthur has more amendments in section 9. I was just looking at them and at the phraseology he wishes to remove, particularly in subsection 9(1), because the wording is just so dangerous and fraught with ill-thought-out possibilities.
I think the problem is very clear. I would like to share the views of my colleagues on this matter: we would like to hear from the Treasurer a solid explanation -- not what we have heard so far -- as to just what is going to happen.
I know the people over there are rather difficult and stubborn about these things -- although my friend the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) is not here tonight -- but I would say to the Treasurer that perhaps he might even want to give some second thought as to the appropriateness of having this one word in the section. As my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) asked, why do we not just withdraw it and get on with things?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, Mr. Chairman, the member may not be satisfied with the general concept of having the fact-finding process subject to these criteria and guidelines; but the fundamental point, and it has been stated here by my colleague several times this evening, is that the proposition he is putting would have the fact-finding process, which often leads to the end of the process from fact-finding to final acceptance and determination, operate under different rules, different criteria and different guidelines than the rest of the process which comes under arbitration and ability to pay.
We have a fundamental disagreement on that point. He says they should operate under different rules and criteria. We say they should not. There is no other explanation than that offered by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
If this House determines that it agrees with the government that fact-finding should operate under the same criteria and rules, then this is obviously a sensible way to approach it by virtue of the definition of arbitration. There is nothing more to add.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, may I have one more go at it? Can I ask the Treasurer and his officials whether they have read the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course we did.
Mr. Foulds: Does he recall that the section on fact-finding is clearly spelled out and clearly has different criteria and different purposes under part III of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act than does voluntary binding arbitration, which is in part IV of the act, and final offer selection, which is part V of the act?
What I am saying to the Treasurer and to his officials, as carefully as I can, is not that we have a difference, not that he says these criteria should apply and we say they should not apply; what I am saying to him is that they cannot apply. One cannot interchange fact-finding with arbitration. They are two entirely different processes as it is spelled out in this act.
I also point out that in subsection 8(1) the bill says, "'arbitration' includes every procedure for arbitration, fact-finding or final-offer selection applicable by statute to employers, and to employees to whom this part applies, and 'arbitrator' has a corresponding meaning." One cannot do that. It is not just that it should not be done; it is not just that his act should not apply to fact-finding: it cannot do it.
Let me read, if I might, section 14 of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. It says: "The commission" -- the Education Relations Commission -- "shall appoint forthwith a person as a fact-finder during negotiations to make or renew an agreement if the parties have not referred all matters remaining in dispute between them to an arbitrator or a board of arbitration as provided in part IV or a selector as provided in part V."
In other words, the role is an entirely different one. I say to the Treasurer as a legislator, and as people who should be concerned about legislation -- I would disagree with any such legislation and I would vote against it but if he wants to apply the criteria he is applying to arbitration to fact-finding then he has to do it specifically to that statute in which fact-finding is described. In other words, he has to bring in legislation amending to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.
8:40 p.m.
If I may use the term because I know no other, here he is bastardizing the process and he is bastardizing his own law. He is making this one laughable. It is symbolic of the ignorance, and I do not use that word pejoratively, that the people who drafted the legislation have about arbitration and its meaning and about fact-finding and its meaning. I really would ask the Treasurer to reconsider and to withdraw that word.
I have not yet heard a satisfactory legal explanation. I have heard a minister's political explanation and I accept it, even though I am going to vote against it. I understand what a political explanation is. I fundamentally disagree with it. So I am going to vote against it. But I have not heard a satisfactory legal explanation. I would like to hear a satisfactory legal explanation.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The draftspersons on something like this follow the procedure which is absolutely normal and which, with respect, the member for Port Arthur has voted for on a thousand different occasions in this assembly.
There have been all sorts of pieces of legislation where, through a definition clause, certain portions are covered, which is not to say that this act makes arbitrations and fact-finding circumstances the same process.
Mr. Foulds: It does.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It does not. If the member will look at this act and look at the thousands of others where certain things have been brought into coverage and put in effect by way of including, for the purposes of this act, for the coverage of this act and the operation of this act, certain other things, that is a totally normal procedure. With respect, I say this very sincerely. I understand the member's sensitivity about arbitration and making sure arbitration and fact-finding, in terms of all the laws of the province and the way they operate, stand as distinct and important entities.
For the purposes of this legislation, and that is all this is for, this is the way the legal draftspersons step into the coverage of that particular exercise. That is why we keep talking about the fundamental question being whether fact-finders are covered or not. This is a very routine method of draftsmanship. One just steps into it in this way. It does nothing whatever to change the integrity of the process other than to apply the criteria, costing and ability to pay to that process by stepping in through this legal drafting procedure. That is all this is.
Mr. Foulds: The minister is stepping into it, but what it is he is stepping into I cannot describe in parliamentary terms.
In fact, the minister is attacking the integrity of the fact-finding process quite separately from attacking the integrity of the arbitration process. By trying to make them parallel he is doing a great disservice to both.
Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the minister's political answer, quite frankly. I do not know what is lost by the minister in terms of a separate procedure. If he is going to follow through with sections 9 and 10 and if he is going to, in effect, give instructions or guidelines to arbitrators, I do not have to agree with that -- I obviously do not -- but they are making the decision. Surely he does not want the inference left there that the same kind of guidelines or instructions are given to the fact-finders. Surely what he wants is to have the fact-finders still bring in as clean and clear information as possible for the use of the arbitrator. Surely we do not want to put restrictions on fact-finders.
The arbitrator makes the decision. I understand what the minister is doing, as much as I abhor it in terms of the legislation and that angle; but in terms of fact-finders the inference is exactly the same. To me, that does not make it just a routine way of doing this bill. It makes it doubly dangerous.
I appeal to the minister -- I am trying my darnedest not to be emotional on the issue -- do not put the same kind of instructions on to the fact-finders. It does not make sense and he does not need to do it. I do not know how he will be hurt by it if he removes at least that from this bill. Otherwise, we have no really clean, clear, independent information. We are not assured of it being given even to the arbitrators.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, just as one last try on my part on this, I would like to remind the Treasurer that after all, as he has assured us throughout this process, we are talking in this transition year about a situation where there will be no exact and total five per cent guideline. His transfers are in a sense a guideline, there is no doubt about that. We on this side admit that.
As I understand, all that will be happening is that reports will be coming to the Inflation Restraint Board and the Treasurer as to where there are "violations," if he wants to call it that, where there are excesses. For some of them, and I am sure he will agree as time goes on, especially with those groups in nursing homes and others who are particularly lower paid, we would hope there would perhaps be some improvement over the five per cent level.
In essence, what I really cannot understand here is that he is fooling with a second process. He is fooling with the arbitration process and now he is fooling with the fact-finding process. It might be understandable to me in political terms if there was something to be had at the end of the game, but there is nothing to be had at the end of the game, so why do we not limit our ill-thought-out and ill-conceived fooling around to the arbitration process and not have to try to put back together perhaps not only that process but put back together some kind of a mess we may inadvertently make of the fact-finding process while we are at it?
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, can the Treasurer tell us if it is his interpretation that wherever the word "arbitrator" appears in sections 9 and 10 we should substitute for that the word "fact-finder" or "fact-finding"? Is that his interpretation?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Rae: How can he then argue that he is not looking at a change to a separate process in addition to the arbitration process?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sorry. Just before the member got here we had covered the fundamental point where it is quite clear that for the purposes of Bill 111 we do intend to effect the fact-finding process by having them obviously cost those portions which they are intending to recommend and have them consider ability to pay. We are effecting the usual fact-finding process by having them consider the same criteria and go through the costing as we are asking for the arbitration process.
The point I was making to the member's colleague when he came in was that the fact that we have accomplished that goal by virtue of a definitional approach should not be taken as saying that fact-finding is, for purposes of other legislation or in terms of the fact-finding process generally, suddenly made an arbitration process. It is not. It is just the way we step into getting the costing and ability to pay into the fact-finding process.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, if I could just point out, under section 21 of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act they already have that. The cost to the board of the proposal of either party is one of the things the fact-finder has to agree to. So it is not needed. That was the argument by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, which I agreed to, that the minister did not need this.
Second, let me just point out to the Treasurer that in section 24 of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act the report of the fact-finder is not binding. It is entirely different from the arbitrator process. Here, if I may say so, he is bastardizing both legal language and the processes and he is fundamentally wrong.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have covered the second point. I am sorry I cannot add anything more than I have said. On the first, the member is right of course. On costing, the fact-finder must consider the cost under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. But that is not the same as then proceeding to the statement of costing, which is required under Bill 111.
8:50 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman: We have before us an amendment by the member for Port Arthur (Mr Foulds), that subsection 8(1) be amended by leaving the words "fact-finding" in line 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
The Deputy Chairman: Does the member have any further amendments to section 8?
Mr. Foulds: I have no further amendments to section 8.
The Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on section 8?
Mr. Foulds: I want to stay on section 8. I want to say very briefly that this is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong-headed. It has, as many people have said, interfered unduly and unjustly in the arbitration process. As the minister has insisted on writing the legislation, it is going to wreak particular havoc on those professions like the teaching professions, but more particularly on the police and firemen.
I suggest that the anger and determination that we saw by the representatives of the police association is something that this government should consider because we were told very clearly they are going to boycott the arbitration process and they are going to challenge this section in the courts.
That is something the government should be very well aware of because it has lost every battle that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has taken into the courts. It has lost on Bill 179, and I am convinced that it is going to lose on this one. The government cannot, by law, take away full, free collective bargaining and offer arbitration as an alternative and then limit the arbitration and straitjacket the arbitrators. The government is going to find itself in one hell of a mess if this section passes. We will be voting against it in an attempt to save the government from itself.
On section 9:
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, once again I want to get on the record the comments in the clause-by-clause that the speakers for this party put on the record on second reading.
This section is fundamentally wrong. It is fundamentally destructive of good neighbour relations in this province. It is destructive of good neighbour relations in an area where we have had no trouble. There was basically no trouble in arbitrations, in terms of labour relations, either for firemen or for policemen in particular. There has been some trouble when it comes to arbitration in the health sector.
But at least in that sector, particularly with the awards that my colleague the member for York South (Mr. Rae) brought up, the Sensenbrenner Hospital awards and the nursing home awards, there was a genuine attempt by the arbitrator to catch up, to right a wrong. What the government is doing with this kind of legislation is to limit that freedom. It is limiting not only the freedom and the right of the arbitrator and destroying that process, it is limiting the fundamental right of a human being providing a necessary service for this province to get a just return for that labour. That, as I said, is fundamentally wrong and fundamentally unfair.
Being bullies is nothing new for this government. That is its stock in trade. That is what this legislation is all about. That is what this clause is all about. It is bullying people into doing its dictatorial will.
Having made those general comments, I would like to move that the words "in the form and manner specified by the board" in subsection 9(1), lines 6 and 7, be struck from the bill.
I would also like to move that the words "and indirect" in line 8 be struck from the bill.
I would also move that the words "of any change to the terms of employment that is to be made as a result of the award or decision" in lines 11, 12 and 13 be struck from the bill.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves in --
Mr. Rotenberg: Dispense.
The Deputy Chairman: Dispense? Thank you. The member for Port Arthur.
Mr. Foulds: I am certainly glad the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) moved to dispense, as I do not think he has even bothered to read the amendments.
The Deputy Chairman: He probably did not get a copy.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I did not read it because I was not supplied with a copy. I sat here, listened to it and comprehended it. There was no reason to have it read twice. I resent the insult and I think it should be withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman: That is not really a point of privilege. The member for Port Arthur will disregard it. I did.
Mr. Foulds: I would be glad to supply any of the members with any of the amendments I am proposing --
The Deputy Chairman: Just speak to the amendment. We do have work before us.
Mr. Foulds: I certainly withdraw any slur I may have inadvertently cast upon the member for Wilson Heights. This is a chamber that is so delicate, so high-flown in debate and so erudite that even the word "political" cannot cross our lips in debate, as the Speaker has ruled. If the tender feelings and the thin skin of the member for Wilson Heights have been singed by any inadvertent remarks I made, I certainly withdraw them. I would much rather have made them directly than inadvertently.
To return to the subject, giving the board the power to have a rigid straitjacket "in the form and manner" in lines 6 and 7 indicates the authoritarian nature of the legislation. It is like an exam where one has to fill in the blanks. I can imagine the bureaucratic forms that will he designed. They will have to be filled in and may not even apply. One of the things this law does not take into account is the differences and variety in human nature and situations and collective agreements, whether they be by arbitration or by full and free collective bargaining or whatever. It simply does not take them into account.
I do not know what the heck this form is going to look like. I would like to have one tabled when the government gets it designed. They are obviously going to have to design it when the Legislature is not sitting. I would love to have a copy of it sent to me between sittings. I suspect it is going to be very rigid. If it is not, they might as well be given a piece of foolscap to write their own report in the first place. The foolscap idea makes a lot more sense.
I think the words "and indirect" should be struck. I would like to know what Solomon is going to determine the indirect cost of agreements. I want to know what they mean by "indirect." That is not defined anywhere in the bill. If one goes on a different shift and there is a shift allowance, how do we take into account that extra shift allowance if we do not know how much overtime is going to be worked? I use that as an example.
If there is a travel allowance in an agreement, as there often is in agreements in northwestern Ontario, and if it is based on mileage, how do we work out the indirect costs of that to the employer? We can get only an approximation at the very best because we do not know how many miles every employee is going to have to travel to get to work.
How do we estimate the travel costs of members of the Legislative Assembly? We never know how much travel we are going to do. If we actually take down our mileage we find it is usually steady, but it can fluctuate a lot. Occasionally it may even depend on the members. There may be some members who stop taking the train. They may have to drive their cars and actually charge for the kilometres. I point out that I do not think that is a realistic criterion at all.
Finally, I have moved a motion to remove the reference to the terms of employment. That will be in line with the amendment I made to clauses l(m)(i) and l(m)(ii) of the bill. I will not repeat the argument I made about the stupidity of including terms of employment in this bill in the first place because I believe they are on the record. I just want to say that including it here once again illustrates the stupidity of the bill.
Mr. Wrye: Our party will support this amendment as it is, though we want to reiterate, as my friend and colleague the House leader for our party said, we will be voting against section 9, as we will be voting against sections 8 and 10.
Mr. Kerrio: He did not ask me.
Mr. Rae: We know where you stand, Vince.
Mr. Mackenzie: To the right of Attila the Hun.
Mr. Wrye: Attila was a pretty good guy.
I could not help thinking, as my friend the member for Port Arthur was speaking, of these poor arbitrators. I am sure they barely passed a 100-course at university. They are obviously third year, high school dropouts. Here are these poor people and we are going to help them again. We are going to give them a form. Maybe it will be a true or false form. Is that not really silly? Who will draw up these forms? Probably somebody at the board or in Treasury and Economics. We have seen how some of the board is operated. Having them draw it up is a frightening thought.
Why we do not let the arbitrators just try to muddle through and do their best out of this mess is really beyond me. It seems to me they will probably provide a much better explanation. I am sure they will be diligent, as they are about everything else, once they figure out how they will go about doing this whole process.
9 p.m.
The other matter I wanted to comment on was the indirect cost. I would like to hear from the Treasurer what we are talking about here. No wonder nobody wants to be an arbitrator any longer under this legislation. Arbitrators very often have to wade through a very complex exercise in the first instance. It will probably take them just as long to wade through the exercise the Inflation Restraint Board and the Treasurer are placing before them in terms of trying to get all this information out.
We will be supporting this amendment, in the knowledge that we do not favour the section as a whole as it refers to the whole arbitration process.
Mr. Mackenzie: I think it is worth going over the fact that for tens of thousands of hospital workers in this province, for tens of thousands of employees under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, for fireman and for policemen, the right to strike was given up. The sawoff was the right to arbitration. The right to arbitration, being controlled as it will be without changes in this section -- indeed the section should be removed entirely -- is a complete negation of the deal that was made with all these thousands of employees. What this government and the Treasurer are doing is breaking faith with them in a serious way.
I would remind the Treasurer of the very eloquent testimony that came from many of these people, and probably none more than from the police associations and the firefighters in this province. They have not had the right to strike. In giving it up, as did thousands of other workers, they had the right to arbitration. This minister is now effectively taking that right away from them. That is what should be on the record very clearly in this debate. I do not really give a darn about the mechanics of the wording. I just want it clearly understood exactly what he is doing and how he has broken faith with these people by taking away what was the trade-off for the right to strike.
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I think my colleagues have put the basic arguments with respect to this particular question around arbitration rather well, but there is one point I think has been missed here in addition to the deal and the good faith and the replacement of the right to strike with the arbitration process.
The Treasurer, being a youngster and not having been around here when those deals were made, needs to understand a number of other things. I recall, because I was working in the civil service at the time the deals were made, the mistrust that existed when the civil service in this province gave up the right to strike and was faced with the process of compulsory arbitration to replace it. I recall the absolute mistrust that existed; I recall the absolute abhorrence in the civil service in this province at even trying the arbitration process. If the minister will take the time to check the record, he will find that for three full years after the tradeoff was made there was virtually -- and I am not saying absolutely -- no use made of the arbitration process because nobody trusted it.
We came down a very long and difficult road between 1973 or 1974 and 1977 or 1978, when some trust finally started to develop. After that trust started to develop and the process started to be used, the trust grew because the process was working. What the Treasurer is in effect doing now with his bill is taking the trust in the arbitration process that took a full decade to build in the public sector of this province and destroying it with one fell swoop in this bill.
I call the Treasurer a youngster because he has not experienced what happened a decade ago. He was still sitting in the back benches or was not even in this place when it all happened. What he is doing with the arbitration process in this bill is setting collective bargaining in this province back 10 years: it is going to take us 10 years to recover from the new lack of trust that will develop as a result of what he is doing to a process that was a tradeoff for the right to strike.
The public sector in this province did not like it when it was imposed a decade ago, but finally they accepted it and began to use it and make it work. Now he is going to take all of that away and distrust will evolve as a result of what he is doing here now. He will be up in this House squawking three and four years from now when they refuse to make the process work again because they no longer trust him. I want him to think very seriously before he proceeds any further.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that subsection 9(2) be deleted from the bill.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I find this to be just the strangest section in the whole bill. If the agreement, the decision or the award is for less than 12 months, he requires the cost or saving to be stated as if the change were in effect for a period of 12 months. He knows what that does, does he not? That is a deliberately provocative section to any group of employees.
He knows what the headlines will read: "Workers get 20 per cent increase." They will not. It will not be for the full year. It will only be for part of the year. It will completely distort what he is pretending and what I think he is lying about -- I withdraw that word, Mr. Chairman -- to be the purpose.
He is pretending the purpose of the legislation is to get all the information out. By saying an award of three months, or six months or nine months, has to be costed and made public as if it were a 12-month award is sheer distortion. Once again, it is surely wrong. I would like the minister to try to explain why he is doing it this way.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, we will be supporting this amendment. At one point we were going to move this same amendment to delete this section but somehow in gathering together our group of amendments this one was missed, so I must say we are in full agreement with the amendment to strike subsection 9(2).
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, in response to the question, our concern here was simply that we do not have contracts entered into during this period of time which would seem, in all other circumstances, to comply with Bill 111 but would have the effect, in essence, of back-end loading the agreements so when they come out of the year under Bill 111 they do not have a clause put in for the last month or the last 20 days or something that has a step-up of 15 per cent which, of course, will establish a new and significantly higher base for the year following this control year.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that subsection 9(3) be amended by striking the words "directly and indirectly associated with any change that the party submits should be made to the terms of employment" in lines four, five and six.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I want to make the argument again in order that my amendment on subclauses 1(m)(i) and 1(m)(ii) with reference to the terms of employment, which is undoubtedly going to carry when we get to 10:15 p.m. and have all these stacked votes, would have to carry for the legislation to be copacetic.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
On section 10:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that section 10 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"Where an arbitral award is made pursuant to the act that exceeds five per cent, provincial transfers to the employer shall be calculated on the basis of the actual compensation increases awarded by the arbitrator."
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I would say at the outset that we find ourselves in a strange position again: we do not favour the section but we would wish to at least add this to it.
Our sense and the sense of the municipalities is -- and I know the Treasurer would want to be sensitive to the municipalities since his colleague is having so much trouble with them -- the municipalities sense they are really in a double jeopardy situation here in terms of the five per cent limitation. Where they are in a collective bargaining process under which the employees can withdraw services the municipalities or school boards simply have to take that into consideration. Not only do they have to take the dictums of this government into consideration in terms of provincial fiscal policy, they must also consider, as will the employees, the situation that exists in terms of going a little over five per cent.
On the other hand, in terms of arbitration, the hands of the employers -- in this case the municipalities, and I am thinking most clearly in reference to the police and firefighters -- are completely tied. They may in good faith believe they cannot afford one nickel over five per cent. If they were in a free and full collective bargaining process with a possible withdrawal of services at the end of the line, they could have made that point and the employee groups would have had to make their determination on that basis.
In this case it may be the matter will go to arbitration and the arbitrator, keeping current existing provincial fiscal policy in mind, may nevertheless make a determination that the award should be somewhat higher than five per cent.
My colleagues and I simply wish to ensure that if that determination is made, the province will be there with its always-generous share of the transfers to protect the municipality and the poor, overburdened taxpayers who find their property tax, that very regressive tax, continues to rise at an alarming rate because of the very inadequate levels of transfers from this government.
In this age of restraint, we certainly would not want to pass along the burden any more than we already have to those poor, underfinanced municipalities.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, we will be supporting this new subsection.
I have a further subsection to add, Mr. Chairman. Do you want me to move it at this time?
Mr. Chairman: No, I think we had best deal with this matter first.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the honourable member that if this were to be accepted then it would be an overwhelming invitation to the municipalities to go to arbitration, unless he would propose that the province flow the extra moneys for a negotiated settlement in excess of five per cent. Then, of course, when the municipalities go to arbitration there would be no risk for them. They would be held to the five per cent and then the province would top up any excess given by any arbitration.
If he would just think about it for a moment, he would really have to say that to keep the process balanced and sensible and to avoid everything ending in arbitration, we would have to make this apply to all negotiations, in which case the bill becomes meaningless. He should remember he does support other parts of the bill. In the alternative, he would have to accept the fact this amendment would send everyone to arbitration.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, we do not support the bill, we believe this clause would help to render the bill meaningless, and we will support any attempt to do that. That is exactly the reason we are supporting the amendment. For once, the Treasurer has put an argument that I could understand and agree with. Unfortunately, we have come to different sides and different conclusions on the way we vote on this.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
Mr. Chairman: Any further amendments to section 10?
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I want to amend it by adding the following subsection -- I guess it will be subsection 4, as the member for Windsor- Sandwich added subsection 3 -- "This section expires on the first day of October 1983." There is a misprint on the paper. I put "1984" when I meant to put "1983."
I will speak to that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that section 10 be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(4) This section expires on the first day of October 1983."
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, as you well know, one of the great talents the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) had in the few moments of the ascendancy of his career was that he was in favour of sunsetting most legislation. Unfortunately, his career has been sunsetted, but the principle lingers on.
If it is a good principle, I believe in carrying it to its logical conclusion. What we have here is a piece of legislation which the Treasurer says is only for one year and should be sunsetted. I agree it should be sunsetted, but I do not agree that it should be for one year.
As we cannot move to delete clauses from a bill -- we cannot propose a motion to delete a whole clause -- I am proposing this subsection which, if passed, would completely nullify the bill and especially these sections. It would mean this section would have never come into effect, it being passed October 1, 1983.
I move this in all seriousness in an attempt to amend the legislation fundamentally so that the section simply will not apply. The whole section on arbitration will be thrown into, as they say, a cocked hat.
Mr. Chairman: As per the discussion we had in committee on this bill earlier in the week, this motion is out of order. The member has the opportunity to vote against that section.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, if you are going to rule it out of order, I will then move that "This section expires on the first day of October 1984."
Mr. Chairman: That is fine.
Mr. Foulds: It is not fine.
Mr. Chairman: I meant it was fine from the point of the rules of order.
Mr. Foulds: I thought I made the argument quite consciously about why it should not come into effect. However, let me argue quite seriously for a minute.
Mr. Chairman: Let me just put the question to the members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Dispense.
Mr. Chairman: Okay. Dispense.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I want the Treasurer and his officials to pay attention to my argument if they can. They have assured us time and time again that this bill is going to be in effect for only one year. They have assured us time and time again that they do not want to intervene permanently in the arbitration process. They go back to other clauses in this bill which say it expires at such and such a time.
I suggest that there is nothing in this bill which makes all its clauses expire on October 1, 1984. In other words, I suggest the bill does have a permanent and fundamental effect on labour relations in this province. Therefore, I want to make it absolutely crystal-clear that the argument about ability to pay, which we reject in its entirety and which we will be voting against, nevertheless is going to be steam-rollered through. The government juggernaut is going to get that through. It may not be until January or February of 1984, but the government will get it through.
However, I want to make it absolutely crystal-clear, if this juggernaut of a dictatorial, insensitive Tory government carries through with its intention to pass the bill, that with respect to this limitation on the arbitrators the legislation actually lives up to the promise given by the Treasurer in words in the Legislature but not in the legislation. In other words, I want genuinely to sunset it. I want genuinely to sunset this particular clause, which says that "the arbitrator shall consider the employer's ability to pay."
We consider that a bad principle and we are going to vote against it. But it is such a bad principle that even the Treasurer has said it should not be a permanent part of the law; he has admitted he only wants to have it temporarily. Therefore, I suggest, let us put it in the legislation and make sure it is only temporary.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, we will be supporting this amendment, which I agree with my friend the member for Port Arthur is an important one. I would hope that the Treasurer for his part would either support this amendment or explain why he is not supporting it, because he has been adamant throughout that this is not a permanent arrangement but is a temporary arrangement for the transition year.
We in our party believe it is bad policy and bad legislation to try something that has not been tried before at this time, without proper study, without any study whatsoever really, because he is going to have a study. We think it would send out, on his part at least, a signal that would provide some degree of relief to those who are going to be captured by this part of this legislation and who are very upset about it if he were to stand in his place and say, "I will put a sunset provision to this one part of the legislation."
In debate the other night the Treasurer gave me a long argument as to why in this transition year it was important even without studies to put this arbitration process in place. On this side we do not accept that argument, but that is the argument the Treasurer made, that in this one transition year, one year, it is important that this process be put in place.
All my friend the member for Port Arthur has suggested, and all we are supporting, is that if that is indeed the Treasurer's argument, let us take it to its logical and consistent conclusion and put a sunset provision at the end of that year. That is why for our part we will be supporting this amendment and why we would urge the Treasurer to make a statement that might go some small degree towards making the workers of the province who will be captured by the arbitration process feel that perhaps it is only something the Treasurer wants for one year, and not some back-door approach which we will have for a long time to come.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I point out to the members -- I know it is not in five words -- that it is quite clear under section 1 and section 8 of the bill that the terms apply only to those contracts that come in this next year. It only applies for one year. It is quite clear.
Mr. Foulds: I did not hear the two sections the Treasurer referred to.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Clause 1(1) and subsection 8(2).
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
9:30 p.m.
On section 11:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that clause 11(1)(g) be amended by striking out the words "and 'terms of employment'" after the words "restraint period" in lines 3 and 4.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak to this amendment. I have made the arguments on it. This just makes it compatible with and parallel to the other references where I have had "the terms of employment" struck, and I do not need to repeat those arguments.
Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that clause 11(1)(b) be amended by deleting the words "adding to or" in line 1.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I always resent sections such as section 11. I resent the way this government for 40 years has drafted its legislation, which basically takes away the rights of the Legislature. I basically resent the way they give to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, i.e. the cabinet, enormous powers to make regulations, and I want to put on record my general opposition to that kind of wide-ranging clause in this kind of legislation.
I particularly want to delete the words "adding to or" in this section because I believe they pinpoint once again the arbitrary, authoritarian and dictatorial arrogance of this government. What we are doing if we give the Lieutenant Governor in Council the right to add to the schedule that is bound by this bill, "any person or any class of persons or any agency, authority, hoard, commission, corporation or organization of any kind" is passing dumb, bad, stupid, Nazi-like legislation.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hey, come on. Withdraw that word. Just clean up your act.
Mr. Shymko: Withdraw your statement about Nazis.
Mr. Foulds: Okay, I will withdraw "Nazi."
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You have been disgraceful on several occasions, and that is stepping over the line. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and I hope that stays in Hansard because, let me tell you, it is typical of some of the things you have been saying.
Mr. Mackenzie: What you have been doing to people is really disgraceful. It is disgraceful legislation.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The member did withdraw it, correct?
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I understand the minister's sensitivity. I apologize to him in the most profound way because of that particular word and considering the minister. I cannot tell him, frankly, just how profoundly sorry I am, and I apologize abjectly, considering the situation.
However, let me also say that I hope it does not take away from my argument, because what it does is to give the minister and this government totalitarian powers, whether those totalitarian powers be of a government of the left or of the right. I suggest to members that the clause itself means this government can incorporate under the legislation any person, any corporation or any organization, and not merely public ones.
What this clause does is to say that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can add any agency or authority to the schedule that is governed by this legislation -- it does not say any government agency or authority -- it says any board, commission, corporation or other organization.
I suggest this clause gives to the government the power to limit the wage and compensation packages of people in the private sector. I thought that was something this government was against, and I would very much like an answer from the minister.
I know why the minister has retired in anger and is upset, but I really would like an answer before we proceed with debate on the bill. My interpretation is that this gives the government the totalitarian power not only to extend the bill to those people included in the schedules that are there but also to add to those schedules the Kiwanis Club of North Bay, for example. I would suggest that until we have that answer from the minister, we should not proceed.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, our party will be supporting this amendment. As we watched the seemingly interminable process of Bill 179 unfold, I remember being in the standing committee on administration of justice, I believe it was -- the minister may remember those days when we considered Bill 179 -- and one of the concerns that we had and that was expressed during that committee was what might happen after the legislation came into effect with the regulations.
It seems to me that the motion by my friend the member for Port Arthur is appropriate in that the clause does offer too much power to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, for example, to add other organizations that we in this place might wish to have argued and to have suggested to the government should not be added, and it takes out of the Legislature's hands powers that perhaps should be in our hands.
With those few remarks, we will be supporting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that this motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that clauses 11(1)(f) and (g) be deleted.
There is one thing that the member might help us with. He has already moved an amendment to clause (11)(1)(g), referring to lines 3 and 4: we stacked that.
9:40 p.m.
Mr. Foulds: I moved that it be deleted from the section. I am now moving that clauses (f) and (g) be deleted from the bill.
Mr. Chairman: My only problem is that the member has an amendment on (g) and we have a stacked vote. Now he is proposing to delete (g), which gives us a problem.
Mr. Foulds: What does it do?
Mr. Chairman: It gives us a problem. We are going to vote on it.
Mr. Foulds: I cannot hear you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: I am saying that we already have the amendment of the member on subsection (g). Now we have his discussion for deleting that same section that he previously moved.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Surely the problem with this is the very fact that we have an agreement to stack votes. That is the difficulty. The point is, if we were voting on each amendment as it was put and debated, and if the amendments that were put to the sections did not carry, then subsequent to that an amendment could be moved to delete sections.
But importantly, since we are stacking we do not have the luxury of seeing whether or not the amendments carry. We cannot then, after we have agreed to stack, delete the amendment until after we see whether the amendment carries. That is why we are in this situation. It is simply because of the agreement to stack.
Mr. Chairman: The member is probably right that the problem is because of the agreement to stack. We should be able to deal with them separately and move on.
Mr. Foulds: Pardon me?
Mr. Chairman: Normally we would be able to have that resolution resolved and then move on.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I would move at this time, seeing that it arouses such confusion in procedural matters, that clause 11(l)(f) be deleted. What happens if I withdraw the previous amendment and just have (g) deleted? Is that possible?
Mr. Chairman: The member can withdraw his amendment at any time. Does the member wish to withdraw?
Mr. Foulds: I will withdraw the one which deleted the term "compensation plan."
Mr. Chairman: The member wishes to withdraw the amendment to clause 11(1)(g), lines 3 and 4.
Mr. Foulds: Yes. I will withdraw that one. We will move that the one on clauses 11(1)(f) and (g) be deleted.
Mr. Chairman: Fine. I will read that from the chair and then we will have it in the record.
Mr. Foulds moves that clause 11(l)(g) be amended by deleting the words "adding to or" in line 1. Mr. Foulds moves that clauses 11(l)(f) and (g) be deleted.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, once again, what I believe is happening in this section is giving to the government enormous powers, if I may say so, dictatorial powers, totalitarian powers. Once again, the government is allowing itself to define in secrecy any expression not already defined. What one can do with that is quite mind-boggling. It is what George Orwell fought against all over again. It is saying that one could, in fact, in secrecy, without coming to the Legislature, take any of the words in this act and define them grossly wrongly.
One could use the words, as they have already, defining fact-finder as arbitrator. That, I consider, is an honest if stupid mistake, but what this particular clause does is give them the power, in council, in secret, contrary to all the principles of responsible government, of legislative government, of democratic government, to redefine the words in the act as they see fit. It is a terribly authoritarian power they are taking unto themselves.
Similarly, clause (g) allows them to define the expressions "arbitrator," "arbitration," "compensation," "compensation group," "group compensation plans," "restraint period" and "terms of employment." That is a very bad method of legislation in the 20th century. I cannot make my words too strong. It is contrary to the democratic principles of this Legislature and surely should be struck.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, we will support this amendment for the same reasons as I laid out in our support of the previous amendment by the member for Port Arthur.
Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Chairman, we will be opposing this amendment. This section is there simply for clarification of terms. It adds to the flexibility of a bill that is strictly a transitional bill between Bill 179 and the following year.
The Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
On section 12:
Mr. Chairman: Before the member commences, will he be putting the amendment the chair has at hand dealing with both sections 12 and 13? There is a problem but I will not predict that. Perhaps the member could proceed.
Mr. Swart moved that Bill 111 be amended by adding thereto the following new sections:
"12(1) There is hereby established a commission to be known as the Fair Prices Commission;
"(2) The commission shall consist of not fewer than three members who shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to hold office for a term to be determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council;
"(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall designate one of the members as chairman of the commission and one or more vice-chairmen from among the members of the board, and the chairman shall have responsibility for assigning among the members the matters to he resolved by the board;
"(4) The chairman may in writing authorize one or more members of the commission to determine any matter to be determined by the commission and for that purpose the member or members may exercise all the jurisdiction and powers of the commission, and the decision of the member or members on the matter shall be the decision of the commission, and where more than one member is assigned to determine any matter, the decision of the majority of such members is the decision of the commission;
"(5) Such members of the commission as are not officers in the public service of Ontario shall be paid such remuneration as may be fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and, subject to the approval of the Management Board of Cabinet, are entitled to be paid reasonable travel and living expenses incurred by them in the course of their duties under this act while absent from their ordinary place of residence;
"(6) A member of the commission may be removed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from office before the expiration of his term, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint any person in the member's stead for the remainder of the term.
"13(1) The commission may make bylaws regulating its proceedings and generally for the conduct and management of its affairs;
"(2) In exercising its powers under this act the commission shall, where appropriate, make use of the services and facilities of any ministry, board, commission or agency of the government of Ontario;
"(3) The commission may, subject to the approval of Management Board of Cabinet, use the services of staff seconded to the board from the public service of Ontario or engage under contract such persons as are considered necessary from time to time for the proper conduct of the affairs of the commission;
"(4) The commission shall, before making any order or determination, hold a hearing, and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies to such hearings;
"(5) No action for damages lies against any member or any employee of the commission for
"(a) any act done in good faith in the performance or exercise of a power or duty; or
"(b) any neglect or default in the performance or exercise in good faith of that power or duty under this act;
"(6) Subsection 5 does not by reason of subsection 5(2) and (4) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act relieve the crown of liability in respect of a tort to which it would otherwise be subject and the crown is liable under that act for any tort of a like manner as if subsection 5 had not been enacted."
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, do you have a copy of this?
Mr. Chairman: I do. I also have some comments on it, if I may. You are proposing to add sections 12 and 13?
Mr. Swart: Yes, 12 and 13.
Mr. Chairman: The problem is that, as per our standing order 15, one would have to rule that these amendments, sections 12 and 13, are out of order because they are directing the allocation of public funds.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that this is not in contradiction of the present section. The present section deals with prices. It is, in fact, an amplification of the present section. It proposes to do more than the original section, but it is not in conflict with the present section of the act.
Mr. Chairman: No. The point is that, as we know, only a minister, on the recommendation of the Lieutenant Governor, can move a resolution or a motion that involves the expenditure of public funds. As I look at the first page of your amendment, for example, you are talking about the paying of such remuneration as might be fixed by the Lieutenant Governor; if you look at the second page, where there is a reference to engaging people under contract, someone would be paying those.
What I am saying is that this is an expenditure of public funds, so it is contrary to standing order 15 and I cannot accept it as being in order. I rule it out of order.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to your ruling once again?
Mr. Chairman: It is not debatable.
Mr. Swart: Then I will have to challenge your ruling.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, if I may, it is my understanding that if a ruling of the Chairman of the committee of the whole is challenged, you have to resolve it.
Mr. Chairman: It would have to be appealed to the House.
Mr. Foulds: That is right.
Mr. Chairman: I would just remind the House that standing order 84 says:
"(a) The standing orders of the House shall be observed in committees of the whole House so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times of speaking.
"(b) The Chairman shall maintain order in committees …"
So this would have to be referred to the House. Is the member appealing it to the House? We have to move out of committee.
Mr. Swart: Yes, I am. I could not hear all of your ruling; I do not think most of the other members of the House could either, but I am appealing it to the House.
Mr. Chairman: The member is then saying, so we are all clear in committee, that he disagrees with the ruling on how the amendments conflict with standing order 15 and he would like it to go to the House.
The House resumed.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the member for Welland-Thorold proposes to put an amendment that would involve the recommendation and, indeed, the expenditure of public funds. The committee Chairman points out that that would be in direct contravention of standing order 15. The member has questioned the ruling of the chair.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Welland-Thorold has appealed the ruling of the chair?
Mr. Swart: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: I would like to hear it. If you can be brief with your concerns, then I will make a judgement.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I submit to this House that this amendment is not out of order on either point of what I think I heard the Chairman to say: first of all, and correct me if I am wrong, it was out of order because the amendment was contrary to the purpose of the act; secondly, later he said it was out of order because of standing order 15, which states that any bill which requires the expenditure of money can be submitted only by the government.
I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that first of all it is not contrary to the bill which we have before us. I would point out that the title of the bill itself says, "An Act to provide for the Review of Prices" and that is in essence what my amendment does. It extends the prices section, but it is not in conflict with it. When the minister was introducing this bill, he himself made the comment on November 8, "We will continue our course of public sector wage and price restraints for one more year." That was his interpretation of this bill.
The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member to be brief. I know the point you are making and if you have made all your points, then I --
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to explain that fully.
This is a wage and price restraint bill by the admission of the Treasurer. We may interpret that by the very name of the bill. It is a wage and price restraint bill. We want to change the price section of this bill. We want to add to it. It certainly cannot be ruled out of order on that ground.
Secondly, the expenditure of money has repeatedly been interpreted in this House where there is a requirement not just for personnel to administer the proposal but for an actual expenditure of money in some other manner. It has always been accepted by this House, to my knowledge in the eight years that I have been here, that a bill was not regarded as a money bill when it just required personnel. That is all this does.
Therefore, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House that this amendment and the two subsequent ones which I will be putting are in order and should be dealt with by this House.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for clarifying his point. I do not want to have a long debate. If one member from each party would like to have a short comment, then I am prepared to make a ruling. Beyond that, the business of the House will proceed.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, as the chairman pointed out to the House, standing order 15 says specifically. "Any ... motion … the passage of which would … specifically direct the allocation of public funds, shall not be passed unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown." I do not like the rule, but that is one of the rules of the House.
10 p.m.
Subsection 12(5) of the proposal from the honourable member states, as members know, "Such members of the commission as are not officers of the public service shall be paid such remuneration as may be fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and, subject to the approval of Management Board, are entitled to be paid reasonable travel and living expenses" etc.
The section is a standard one that normally accompanies a bill put forward by a member of the executive council, and for that reason we must agree with the ruling of the Chairman that the amendment cannot be considered to be in order.
The Acting Speaker: I am not listening to all members of the House. I have asked for comments from each party. Are there any comments from the government party?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think it is patently clear on the surface of it, as has been outlined by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) with regard to subsection 12(5).
The Acting Speaker: The chair has heard the views and appreciates the concerns being raised by the member for Welland-Thorold. However, he is guided solely by the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of August 1981 and standing order 15 makes it very clear that:
"Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds, shall not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown."
I therefore have to rule the Chairman of the committee of the whole House as being in order and that is the ruling of the chair.
Mr. Swart: I will challenge the ruling.
10:10 p.m.
The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Bernier, Birch, Boudria, Conway, Dean, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCague, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil;
Miller, F. S., Miller, G. I., Mitchell, Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Riddell, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Ruston, Sargent, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Spensieri, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Van Horne, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Wrye, Yakabuski.
Nays
Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Di Santo, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Lupusella, Mackenzie, McClellan, Philip, Rae, Renwick, Swart, Wildman.
Ayes 68; nays 18.
House in committee of the whole.
Mr. Chairman: There was a proposal by Mr. Swart about amendments 12 and 13. I would just confirm they were ruled out of order. At this point we have had agreement to deal with the matters that have been stacked. I wonder if we may proceed accordingly.
10:26 p.m.
The committee divided on Mr. Foulds's amendments to subclause 1(m)(i) and subclause 1(m)(ii), which were negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 43; nays 60.
Section 1 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Foulds's amendment to subsection 3(4), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 3 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 5 stand as part of the bill?
Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: That section was stood down and we cannot vote on it at this time.
Mr. Chairman: I thank the member.
10:30 p.m.
The committee divided on Mr. T. P. Reid's amendment to subsection 6(2), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 24; nays 79.
The committee divided on Mr. T. P. Reid's amendment to subsection 6(5), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 6 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Foulds's amendment to subsection 7(b), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 43; nays 60.
The committee divided on Mr. Foulds's amendment to subclause 7(c)(ii), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 7 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Foulds's amendment to subsection 8(1), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 43; nays 60.
The committee divided on whether section 8 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 60; nays 43.
Section 8 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Foulds's amendment to section 9, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 43; nays 60.
The committee divided on Mr. Foulds's amendment to subsection 9(2), which was negatived on the same vote.
The committee divided on Mr. Foulds's amendment to subsection 9(3), which was negatived on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 9 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.
Section 9 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Wrye's amendment to section 10, which was negatived on the same vote reversed.
The committee divided on Mr. Foulds's amendment to section 10, which was negatived on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 10 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.
Section 10 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Foulds's amendment to clause 11(1)(b), which was negatived on the same vote reversed.
The committee divided on Mr. Foulds's amendment to clauses 11(l)(f) and (g), which was negatived on the same vote.
The committee divided on whether section 11 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.
Section 11 agreed to.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported progress.
10:40 p.m.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourns, as required in the rules I would like to state the business for tomorrow and next week.
Tomorrow morning we will deal with the estimates of the Office of the Premier.
On Monday, December 12, in the afternoon we will continue in committee of the whole on Bill 111 until five o'clock and then finish with what time is remaining for the estimates of the Premier (Mr. Davis). Any votes on Bill 111 will be stacked until 10:15 p.m. on the evening of December 12. In the evening, we will deal with either concurrences, supplementary estimates or bills.
I think at this juncture it will be easier if I give a statement tomorrow as to exactly what we will do, and for the rest of the week we will give daily statements as to what will be the business.
I remind the members again that we have by motion agreed to meet next week on Wednesday morning, Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning. The no-confidence motion standing in the name of the member for York South (Mr. Rae) will be debated on Wednesday afternoon, with the vote just before six o'clock.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I used certain language in this House earlier this evening that I would like to apologize for in the presence of the Treasurer. I totally withdraw the words. I must say I cannot express how much I regret overstating the case.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I was a little upset about it, but I understand that unfortunately these circumstances arise from time to time. I have known the honourable member for some time, and I know he would not mean what he said. It must have been inadvertent. I know it was, because he would not intend to say something like that. Therefore, of course, I fully accept his apology.
The House adjourned at 10:42 p.m.