TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION, GRAY COACH LINES, LIMITED AND GO TRANSIT LABOUR DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT
TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION, GRAY COACH LINES, LIMITED AND GO TRANSIT LABOUR DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION, GRAY COACH LINES, LIMITED AND GO TRANSIT LABOUR DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 125, An Act respecting Labour Disputes between the Toronto Transit Commission, Gray Coach Lines, Limited and GO Transit and Locals 113 and 1587, Amalgamated Transit Union, Lodge 235, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 2.
Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 125 with a sense of terrible irony. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) in introducing the bill, the Premier (Mr. Davis) in speaking earlier this week about the need for such a piece of legislation, and my colleagues on all sides of the House have invoked as one of the reasons, and perhaps in many ways the main reason for our being here, the prevention of a disturbance or inconvenience of any kind -- however one wants to express it -- while the Pope is visiting Toronto.
I say "with a sense of terrible irony" because Karol Wojtyla, better known as Pope John Paul II, would be the last man in the world who would support what we are doing here. All through his life in Poland as a young man, particularly during the Nazi occupation of his country, and later through the Communist Russian occupation of his country, Karol Wojtyla stood for certain fundamental things: the rights of people and a balance of rights at all times. He was one of those in our world who never believed that rights were limitless for anyone. One always had to consider rights on both sides of most issues. Eventually one had to come down one way or the other, but one had at least to consider them.
When Karol Wojtyla was a parish priest, and when he was named a bishop, later an archbishop and still later a cardinal in his native Poland, there were two groups of people in particular that he more often than not associated with and in whose company he felt comfortable. They were students and workers. That was a little ironic, too, because often there is a conflict between those two groups of people in our society. It is something I regret but it is here anyway.
Wojtyla managed to bridge that conflict. He managed to get these two groups of people in Polish society to understand the role each had to play. He brought them to have a respect for one another rather than to be in conflict with one another.
Here we are in Ontario in August 1984 anticipating the visit to our city and to our province of this man, the spiritual leader of the faith of which I am a member, a spiritual leader of whom I am very proud, a spiritual leader whose sense of direction I try to follow to the best of my ability and not always very well, but a spiritual leader whom I think I understand just a little bit; and I am very uneasy about being here today.
As a matter of fact, I am a little angry as well; not angry because this Legislature is recalled and I have a job to do here -- no, I do not mean that -- but angry because I think there is a small sense of dishonesty, a small sense of fraud in why we are here. We are being asked to make decisions, to debate legislation about something which should not be the issue and I am not even sure really is the issue. I have a sense of anger that the spiritual leader of my faith may even be being used -- inadvertently, I hope, but being used anyway -- being manipulated in what I think is a fraudulent way.
I would say once again if Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II, had a say in what we are doing here he would not approve of it. He has gone back to his native Poland since he was made Pope; he has spoken to the leaders of Solidarity, the labour movement in Poland; he has spoken to the Communist leaders of Poland and made very clear where he stands with respect to the rights of workers. I have a strong sense that stand would not differ whether it were made in Poland or Ontario or Toronto. That is something we have to keep in mind if we are going to use that as our reason. That is why I feel the irony, that is why I feel the anger, and that is why I have a sad sense of dishonesty about this whole piece of legislation when that is being used.
I do not think that is really why we are here at all. That is not why we are here at all in my judgement. Let us look at the history. In the past decade, in the past 10 years the workers of the Toronto transit system have either gone on strike or voted for a strike three times. What happened?
In 1974 the strike was allowed to proceed for 23 days before the Legislature stepped in and put a stop to it. That really does not seem too unreasonable. I strongly suspect that had I been a member of this Legislature in 1974 I probably would have voted in support of that.
8:10 p.m.
There was a bargaining process that took place. The strike took place. It lasted beyond three weeks. Probably by that time things would not have got any better. I do not know; I can only speculate as to what might have been. I can understand that, and if things had proceeded that way over the next couple of times, I do not think very many of us in here would have been very upset about it.
But the next time there was a Toronto transit strike I was a member of this Legislature. That was in 1978. That strike was allowed to proceed not for 23 days or 20 or 18 or 15; it was allowed to proceed for four days. Now in 1984, 10 years after the first reference I just made, we have the third time that the workers of the Toronto Transit Commission -- as has been clearly identified by several previous speakers strictly within their rights, within the laws of Ontario, the laws that we as members of this Legislature as well as everyone else are bound to uphold -- have taken a strike vote.
I do not stand in any of their shoes; I have no way of knowing why they chose to act the way they did. But they had a right to do so, they did it within the law and they did it freely within the collective bargaining system, within the law of this province. They have the right to bargain, they have the right to choose not to accept their employer's offer, regardless of what anyone else feels is fair or unfair -- that is not the issue here; they have the right to refuse it under our present laws -- and in refusing it they have the right to vote to go on strike. Whether we like it or not, that is their right.
I spoke earlier about the basic principle that no right is limitless. There are times when the rights that accrue to any one of us individually or to any group of us collectively may have to be limited for a greater good. But whenever we do that we had better be very careful of why we do it, because each time we do it we send out a message from this assembly, we create an image of what this assembly's decision-making process is all about, and we had better be very careful when and why we do it.
I am not at all sure that this time we are going about it in the proper fashion, because this time we are saying to those workers that although they have acted completely within their rights, we are not going to allow them to proceed even to stage one. They are not going to be able to go on strike even for one day this time, never mind four days or 23 days. We are saying none.
I spoke earlier about a sense of dishonesty, because surely what this legislation is saying, what the statement of the Minister of Labour this afternoon said, is that this government in this province in this city will not tolerate a strike under any circumstances. That is why I spoke of the earlier fraud, the earlier dishonesty in linking it to the visit of Pope John Paul II.
All we have to look at are the reasons in the minister's statement. Let me share them briefly with members once again. Beginning on page 10 of the minister's statement he says, "TTC serves a metropolitan community of over two million people." He goes on to say, "Different levels of government have encouraged reliance on public transit," and further that it is "the key to a habitable environment." For those reasons we cannot permit a strike. Whether the Pope were coming or not, would those facts still be true? Most of my colleagues, even on the other side of the House, would say yes.
We continue: the minister says this strike could create a personal hardship. It could make it difficult for people attending work. It could be difficult for the elderly. Whether the papal visit to Ontario takes place or not, do any of these factors change? I think not.
The minister goes on in his statement, on page 12, that a strike would compromise normal traffic; that it would make difficult the movement of emergency vehicles; that if we were to have a serious fire or any other kind of emergency we would have a problem. Would the papal visit make any difference to any of these? Again, I think not.
Then comes the real issue at stake in the minds of the government and in the mind of the minister. They refer to the potential economic losses as being staggering. The minister mentions a list of them. I will not read them. They are available for everyone to read. That is really what this legislation is all about.
In his summary the minister goes on to say that the government believes this is a responsible course of action because the public health, safety, economic wellbeing and convenience of the community are at stake.
What are we to believe? Are we to believe the strike vote that has already taken place will not be allowed to proceed because exactly two days after it begins there is to be a papal visit to this province? Is that what we are to believe? That is what the Premier said. That is what the minister alluded to -- not very extensively, I admit.
The Toronto daily newspapers, the television news tonight and the radio news this morning all alluded to it. That is the --
Hon. Mr. Ashe: What about the cardinal?
Mr. Sweeney: I was just about to say to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe) that the public perception alludes to this as being the reason as well. That is where the dishonesty and fraud come in, because that is not what we are all about. Otherwise, why this statement referring to emergency vehicles, economic losses, the difficulty of the elderly in getting around, and referring to students? That is the reason it is being done.
Now we come to the third point. If we were really being honest in this, this government should be prepared to say straight out -- because it is certainly saying it in a dozen other ways -- that it does not believe there should be a strike, period. It should say it does not believe the transit workers in this city and this province should be allowed to strike, period.
If that is what it wants to say, if that is what it really means, then I would like it to have the guts to come out and say it. Then we would be able to deal with the situation on a level of honesty. Then we would know what we were voting about.
8:20 p.m.
I am not suggesting by that statement that I agree that is the case, not at all; but at least we would know what we were dealing with, at least we would be on a level where everyone would know what the issue really was.
That is not the legislation before us. We do not have a bill before us that says straightforwardly and honestly what we are doing here. We have before us a bill that tries to accomplish by the back door what the government and the minister are not prepared to do by the front door.
We have to understand clearly what we are voting about in this bill. What we are being presented with is something that is dishonest and fraudulent. For that reason I am not able to support this legislation.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, as a Toronto resident, I can understand the concern of the people of Metropolitan Toronto about the possibility of a transit strike. I can certainly understand the worries of senior citizens who have no car and depend on public transit to get around. I can also understand the fears of workers and students that they will not be able to get to their jobs and schools. I shudder at the thought of the congestion and mass traffic jams we would face.
I can also share the deep concern of Metro residents, both Catholic and non-Catholic, that the papal visit will be disrupted. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the Holy Father and hear his message of peace and justice. We want to be proud of our welcome to him.
Why then am I and my party unhappy with Bill 125? None of us wants a transit strike. The main reason is that we think the bill is premature. We feel there is another route to preventing a strike. It is a much preferable route and it could be taken immediately by the provincial government before it applies this kind of sledgehammer legislation.
The failure to achieve a settlement must be laid squarely at the door of the provincial government. That has been the real roadblock that has let the TTC take the flak for appearing inflexible. We should remember that in 1982 the provincial government imposed a five per cent ceiling on wage increases for all public sector employees through Bill 179. Collective bargaining on wage issues or any form of compensation was effectively killed by that bill.
In October 1983, the Supreme Court of Ontario declared aspects of that bill violated the Charter of Rights, particularly the freedom of association clause. So in 1983 the government made a great noise about the restoration of collective bargaining in its second restraint bill. It even called the 1983 restraint bill an act for an orderly transition to the resumption of full collective bargaining.
This time it did not impose a mandatory ceiling. Instead, it gave the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) power to set criteria for acceptable increases. The Treasurer used this power to set a five per cent guideline and notified municipalities, school boards and other public agencies that their transfer payments for wage increases would be limited to a maximum of five per cent.
In theory, local bodies could negotiate settlement above the five per cent, but they would have to find the extra money from some other source or reduce other expenditures. Such adjustments would not be easy with tight budgets but they were possible.
In fact, though, the bill really meant a continuation of the freeze on collective bargaining by the back door. It was a cruel hoax on public sector workers, who faced a second year of restraint and no true freedom to bargain.
This is what happened to the TTC workers. The TTC took the position that it was not allowed to go above the five per cent guideline. Bargaining stopped at that level. The private sector was still free to bargain to any level agreeable to both parties. Executives in the private sector were still able to give themselves wage increases of 10 and 12 per cent, and auto executives were able to raise their salaries to obscene amounts of $500,000.
No wonder the TTC workers felt unfairly treated after two years of five per cent ceilings and being discriminated against because they were public sector employees. They were really second-class citizens under this legislation.
During the negotiations, the government did nothing to tell members of the TTC they were misinterpreting Bill 111. It did nothing to tell them they should have restored full collective bargaining to TTC employees as promised. It let the TTC continue to pretend its hands were tied and further collective bargaining was impossible.
The only real solution to this impasse is for the government to get the parties back to the bargaining table immediately. This has already been proposed by my leader and by other speakers, but I want to emphasize this route must be tried, with full provincial conciliation and mediation services if needed.
The government must urge the TTC to consider some further adjustment in wages and working conditions which might achieve a settlement. It must make it clear that reasonable adjustments would not be disallowed as they have not been in other cases where negotiations produced settlements above the five per cent.
It might even offer the TTC some additional provincial grants since provincial funding of transit costs is way below what most other North American cities of the same size as Toronto receive. It should remember that good public transit also saves the province money in road construction and pollution control costs.
I urge the government to work for a real negotiated settlement. I am confident one could be reached and that it would end any possibility of a strike at this time. It would be an infinitely better way of achieving the necessary objective of avoiding a strike.
In addition, it would do two very important things. First, it would avoid precedent-setting legislation which destroys collective bargaining rights and which provides the employees affected with no compensating guarantee of fair treatment. Second, it would do an immense amount to overcome the resentment and ill will that is poisoning relations between the TTC and its employees. A negotiated settlement would be the best example that Metro could show to the Pope of our commitment to human rights and fairness in labour relations in this jurisdiction.
I appeal to the government to try this route immediately and to regard this legislation before us as contingency legislation to be implemented only in the event of a failure to reach a settlement in the next few days. I ask the government to remember that legislation which takes away basic rights on an ad hoc basis should have no part in the agenda of a democratic government. I ask it to consider our reasonable alternative, which I am confident could succeed.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief, and I hope to the point.
I make these comments as a former Labour critic for our party, as a former public relations officer for a teachers' federation to which I was proud to belong, and beyond that, as an elected member who is very concerned about what is happening in this whole process.
First off, let me say that as a member of a teachers' federation more than 25 years ago when teachers had to fight, scrap and struggle for every bit of recognition they got monetarily and every other way, I can appreciate the concern of any group of workers or people who have to band together to try to make themselves heard.
That attitude, which developed over the years as I worked for the federation, was underlined when I became Labour critic for our party and headed a labour task force which travelled in northern, southern and eastern Ontario to try to gather the views of the workers' representatives, of labour in general and of management.
I came away with the very distinct feeling there are very few tools the rank and file have to help them to succeed, if not survive, in their day-to-day tasks on the job.
Mr. Laughren: What does that mean?
Mr. Van Horne: What I perceive here is a very heavy hand of government --
Mr. Laughren: However, he will endorse that heavy hand.
Mr. Van Horne: I am not inclined to look to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), who is so adept at interjections when he does not have to carry the pail and when he can sit in the background. Someone earlier -- I believe it may have been his own leader -- used the analogy of the Charlie McCarthy syndrome. I submitted that perhaps he was the Mortimer Snerd of the New Democratic Party.
I will have to carry on ignoring his comments, if I can -- it will be difficult because he is rather boisterous on occasion -- and go to the issue of collective bargaining. It grieves me to see collective bargaining abused as it is being abused in this situation.
Mr. Laughren: Tell us about it.
Mr. Van Horne: I would like to shift for a moment and let those who are opposed sink in their own whatever, and submit to the House that I will have to support this legislation very reluctantly. I underline "very reluctantly."
Mr. Laughren: Are you opposed to this abuse?
Mr. Van Horne: Having said that, I expect the member for Nickel Belt will dry up and blow away, but maybe that is expecting too much.
Mr. Laughren: I may dry up, but I will not blow away.
Mr. Van Horne: Let me submit to the House what I said a moment ago in perhaps slightly different words. The abuse of the collective bargaining process, as it is being addressed here in this chamber, concerns me and my party.
Mr. Laughren: However, you will support it.
Mr. Van Horne: I would like to add that the member for Nickel Belt, the New Democratic Party, the government -- and yes, the opposition -- collectively perhaps do not have all the answers.
Beyond that, let me submit that any of the members who are knowledgeable about the events of our community and our province may have read a document called Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis, a document which got considerable notoriety not too many months ago. One of the sentences that comes into this very thoughtful presentation reflects on the suspension of collective bargaining rights for public sector workers, and it speaks very much against that. Of course, that is the paper presented by the bishops of our community.
It is interesting to note, in support of what I submitted a while ago, that neither the NDP nor perhaps any of the three parties had all of the answers. I refer to the headline "Carter Rejects Bishops' Blast on Economy." The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), with his all-knowing grin and his sneer, at times shows this chamber some disregard because he handles us all with such wonderful disdain. The member for Nickel Belt lets his political leanings run amok with his rational approach to the problems of this province. If everything were to be handled by those two Yo-Yos, with their simplistic approach to politics, we would not have to be here at all. I submit to the members that both of these gentlemen are irrelevant and should be ignored, and I trust Hansard will treat them in the same manner.
Having said that, I again repeat that no one political party, no one group -- and I include the workers, the management, the three political parties and the church -- has all the answers. I am very disappointed that the government does not take situations such as this as a possibility before they happen. We have seen two situations --
Mr. Laughren: However, you will support it.
Mr. Van Horne: Dry up. Simply dry up.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Van Horne: The member is an annoyance. Mr. Speaker, I have the floor and I expect to be heard without interjections that are irrelevant from the member for Nickel Belt or the member for Bellwoods.
Having said that, and knowing full well they will carry on with their diatribe, let me add the conclusion to the point I was about to make, and that is simply that the government, with its mandate to govern, with its mandate to lead, has missed an opportunity in not calling together all groups concerned for a full and open debate on issues such as this.
I could add other situations into the proposition that would make my case more arguable, if it has to be made more arguable. A paper I have recently read, a paper presented by Mr. Stewart, who is involved with the Energy and Chemical Workers Union in London, Ontario, makes reference to the implications of technology as it relates to the labour market and the whole labour-management process. If we consider, for example, the phenomenon of robotics, which we did not even think about 20 years ago, that is now presenting real concerns to labour, management and government in this province of ours.
Having said that, and having again taken a look at the problems we are facing right now with this particular situation here in Ontario, I point out to the government in the strongest possible terms that it is incumbent on them as supposed leaders, as governors, to call together the leaders of labour and of management, the three political parties in this province, federal politicians, the church and any other concerned parties to review fully the problems that are facing the worker in our community. I say this in all sincerity. I say this in spite of very reluctantly voting for this bill. This is distasteful, but unfortunately it must be.
8:40 p.m.
In conclusion, I submit the government has ignored suggestions made from time to time by my party and my colleagues. I recall very briefly the legislation suggested by my colleague the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), who has presented for many years a bill entitled An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, which basically calls for a 60-day suspension -- in other words, a cooling-off period. That has been ignored.
I could go on, but I will not do so because I assured my colleagues and our whip I would not be too long this evening. I would submit the government has been negligent, that it has missed the opportunity to lead, to call together those who might be able to provide alternatives and assistance to the workers in this province.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make, but I would like to be assured I will have the floor and will not be heckled by the Liberal caucus when I make my remarks.
Mr. Speaker: I must point out -- and I think you all know -- every member has a right to speak, but whether they will be heard or not is a decision of all members.
Mr. Laughren: I am most distressed by this legislation. I think it is clear from the remarks of my colleagues that collectively we are very much distressed by it. What bothers us more as the day goes on is to hear the expressions from the other opposition party in this Legislature. It professes to be concerned, but on the other hand it can hardly wait to support the legislation.
It seems to me one of the cornerstones of a democratic society, measured not just by democratic socialists but by many people around the world, is the right of labour to bargain collectively. I think that is not a radical view of what a free society is all about, but rather one that is rather widely held. When I see this right being taken away I do not take it lightly.
I know it is extremely easy to do. This government could hardly wait; it was salivating while it awaited the outcome of the second vote of the transit workers. Did the government insist on returning to some hard-nosed bargaining? It did not insist. Why did it not insist? I will leave that up to the individual's imagination, but it does not take too much imagination to understand why it was salivating as it awaited the outcome of that vote.
When I think of the kind of society I live in the phrase that often comes to my mind is "peace, order and good government." I think of that phrase in a way that perhaps this government does not. I think of it in terms of competing interests but interests that compete in a very democratic way. When the government thinks of peace, order and good government, it thinks of a tranquil kind of society in which there is no conflict, no protest. Of course, that would include no one withholding one's labour; no one would ever have to resort to a strike.
I do not know what kind of Utopian world this government lives in, but that is not about to happen. It seems to me the government today is saying to Ontario people that we want to have a very tranquil society, an orderly society and we are not going to tolerate conflict -- of the nature of a strike, for example.
The preamble to the bill states, "and whereas strikes by the unions against the employers would cause a cessation of the operation of public transportation facilities, rendering travel difficult and endangering the public safety," etc., and it makes reference to the public interest.
Where is this all going to end? This afternoon during question period when I rose in my place to ask the Minister of Labour what he thought about the strike at the Sudbury Star which was six months long
-- it has already been in place six months -- the minister replied, "I am quite distressed at the length of the work stoppage and the difficulties in finding a resolution to the circumstances." He had no difficulty finding a resolution to the circumstances in the dispute between the transit workers and the Toronto Transit Commission.
He went on to say: "...when there is a dispute, I will not comment on the positions taken by the two parties, the offers made by either of the parties or the responses to the offers. Particularly in cases where the positions seem to be locked in, collective bargaining is difficult and sensitive enough without making third-party comments in this Legislature." The heaviest third-party comment I have ever witnessed in my days here is this particular bill, Bill 125. For the minister to talk about not wanting to make comments on disputes is total nonsense.
It is very easy for the minister and his government to invoke legislation such as this because it does not even matter if the opposition happens to be opposed to the government, as we are. The government would still have the right and the power to impose the legislation. What are the minister's views on future negotiations? Does the minister not have some sense there is some connection between what has happened in the past with transit strikes in Metropolitan Toronto and what is happening today?
Does the minister really think he can go on? Previously, if there was a strike, he negotiated them back. Now if there is a threat of a strike, he negotiates them back. I really wonder what the minister sees down the road for collective bargaining between the transit workers and the TTC.
Mr. Charlton: Next time he will legislate them back when they threaten to bargain.
Mr. Laughren: That is right. This is anti-bargaining legislation. My colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) makes the point that the next time, if they threaten to bargain he will legislate the workers back.
I read from the bill again. Clause 8(1)(b) says, "...no employee, member, officer, official or agent of the employers or the unions or of any one of them shall engage in, declare, threaten, authorize or acquiesce in a strike, lockout or picketing."
He cannot acquiesce; cannot acquiesce in a strike or picketing? Acquiesce seems to me to be noninvolvement. Perhaps my understanding of the English language could be better, but perhaps when the minister replies he could tell me what that means.
Clause 8(1)(c) says, "no person shall counsel, procure, support or encourage a strike, lockout or picketing contrary to this part and no person shall do any act if the person knows or ought to know that, as a probable and reasonable consequence of the act, another person or persons will engage in a strike or lockout contrary to this part."
I want to know what kind of wisdom the minister has, will have, intends to have or hopes to have regarding what people ought to know. I suppose he will use the argument that ignorance of the law will be no excuse for not knowing the law. I am very worried about the path on which this government has launched itself in labour negotiations in Ontario.
8:50 p.m.
I would like him to tell me why in future disputes either side should settle without third-party involvement. Perhaps the minister could tell me. I do not want to interrupt the minister and the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow), so I will --
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am listening.
Mr. Laughren: I am sure he is listening.
I would like to know why he thinks either side would be serious about settling in tough, hard-nosed negotiations next time there is a dispute. I can recall when there was a secondary school teachers' strike in Sudbury some years ago, about five years ago, I believe. During that strike members of this party sat here and said to the Minister of Education we thought the two sides should settle it through the process of negotiations. It was tough bargaining. They were out on strike for three months.
The then leader of the Ontario Liberal Party was on his feet in this House day after day suggesting they should be legislated back to work. Every time the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party made that statement, it became more and more difficult to settle at the local level because they felt: "Why should we bother? The government will intervene?" I believe the present Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) understands that. I am not sure the present Minister of Labour does understand that.
Mr. Kerrio: That is ridiculous.
Mr. Laughren: The member may call it ridiculous, but it was very clear in the community that every time the Ontario Liberal Party intervened it became increasingly unlikely the two sides would settle the issue by themselves. That dispute was needlessly prolonged by the intervention of the Ontario Liberal Party. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
It is always very easy to find the instant solution. It is always so simple to find the instant, easy solution, but in the long run that does not do either side a service.
Mr. Kerrio: You cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Laughren: You will not, but you should. You are not doing yourselves a service on this issue either.
Mr. Kerrio: You cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Laughren: When I hear members of the Liberal caucus stand up and bemoan the fact that this is happening, I do not understand what they are talking about at all. They simply do not know either.
Mr. Kerrio: The minister is over there.
Mr. Laughren: If I were to ask the Minister of Labour one question it would be, before he brought in this legislation --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt has the floor. His colleagues could let him continue.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, it is good to have an ally in the chair. If I were to ask the Minister of Labour one question it would be does he feel that before he brought in this legislation absolutely everything had been done to make the introduction of this legislation unnecessary?
Given the fact this is August 29 and the date for the strike was September 12, I find it hard to believe everything necessary has been done in that those people were not put together with an assist from the Minister of Labour to have it resolved. I simply do not believe anything has been done. I still believe there would be time to resolve it.
I ask myself, what is the right to strike, whether it is in the public sector or in the private sector? That is what I would ask members of the government and members of the Liberal caucus to ask themselves. What is the right to strike in a society which says that it is legal for this particular group of workers? Is the act of striking an act of civil disobedience? Is it an act of pique? Is it an act of disloyalty, an act of self-destruction? Is it unpatriotic or is it subversive?
If they feel it is one of those, then let them stand in their places and say so. Let them say that to engage in withholding one's labour is to do one of those things. Let them stand in their places and have the courage to say that. If they do not think that is what it is, let them say so and say that it is an inconvenience to the public.
They cannot have it both ways. It seems to me they are having it both ways, but I very much resent the fact that they have. Let them make up their minds over there. Do they think people should have the right to withhold their labour or do they not? When they do not, for heaven's sake, let them have the courage to put it in legislation and bring it before this Legislature for proper debate.
This kind of charade they are engaging in now is dishonest. It is fundamentally dishonest. They say these people have the right to withhold their labour and then, as soon as they even express the desire to utilize that, they take it away from them. That is something they are going to have to explain to me. I do not understand it.
I would assume that when the next provincial election is called the Minister of Labour will be prepared to campaign across the province on the question of who has the right to withhold his labour and who does not. I would hope he would have the courage to do it in a forthright manner, rather than saying, "We will give everyone the right to withhold their labour until they threaten to do so." That is what he has done now, and I cannot think of a more dishonest approach to labour negotiations in any jurisdiction.
I shall not go on, but I believe that at some point this government is going to reap the harvest of its antilabour legislation. The very application of Bill 111 to this bill is fundamentally wrong. The remarks of my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) were most appropriate, and I hope the Minister of Labour will take them seriously and will take a look at the amendments that will be proposed.
I want to tell the minister, as someone who represents a community which is basically a labour community and is highly unionized, that when I see this kind of legislation and when people talk to me about this legislation in the Sudbury community, I say to them, "Just ask yourselves who is next under this government."
This government has absolutely no compulsion about taking away from anyone the right to withhold his labour, because it is not based on a principle. At some point I believe international organizations are going to be looking at this kind of legislation in Ontario and will be embarrassing this jurisdiction.
As I said at the very beginning, I really believe one of the fundamentals of a free society is the right of people to withhold their labour. This government does not seem to take that very seriously.
Mr. Mackenzie: I will be very brief and I will be winding up this part of the debate, at least as far as my party is concerned.
I want to say to members of the House and I want to say specifically to the Minister of Labour and to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), who is here, that we had a long and bitter debate on Bill 179 and on Bill 111. I remember some of the comments on Bill 111 in particular in this House better than a year ago. I remember some of the things that were said by my leader. I remember some of the things I said in the course of that debate.
One of the things I said at the time, and we had some snickering and "it is not so" remarks from across the House, was that what they were buying was trouble, what they were buying was a basic undermining of free collective bargaining. One of the things the members across the floor claimed was that Bill 111 actually opened up the right of workers to bargain again after Bill 179. That was not true. The workers in Ontario, and in the public sector in particular, were misled by those kinds of remarks.
There was a balance. We said what the members opposite were saying was not factual. Bill 125 is a direct result of Bill 111 and it proves that what we said at that time was right on.
We said if there was in place legislation that says one can bargain, but the government is going to set the guidelines or decide what the transfers are, then it makes a farce out of collective bargaining. If the government is going to go further than that and instruct arbitrators to take into consideration local economic circumstances, then it compounds the problem.
9 p.m.
I very much fear we are heading for controlled arbitration in this province -- and there seems to be some indication of it from some of the Premier's remarks -- and it scares the hell out of me, quite frankly. This legislation is an abomination. There is no reason for it. There is no reason to make the matter worse. That is what the government is doing with this legislation. Now it is workers in Ontario in the public sector -- but we have to ask the question: how long before the government broadens that to other sectors? The government is clearly saying, "You do not have the right to free collective bargaining."
I could read the preamble in the Labour Relations Act. There have been a lot of comments that indicate the concern that many people, not only the New Democrats in the province, are now beginning to articulate about where this government is going and why it has so completely lost confidence in the free collective bargaining process.
I thought an appropriate remark was made by a gentlemen I do not know who was quoted in this morning's Globe and Mail. "Bernard Adell, a law professor at Queen's University, said Premier William Davis' decision to prohibit a strike before it occurs 'shows how little faith the government has in the collective bargaining process.'" What other message are workers in the province getting?
Unfortunately, the government may be playing a bit to a popular, reactionary -- I think that is the proper word -- atmosphere that is abroad in the land today, although we are going to see that change rather dramatically over the next period of time. It seems to be popular today to lay the blame for all kinds of problems on the backs of workers. The comment was made by some of our speakers that it seems to be popular today to kick unions or working people. Or if somebody is lucky enough to get $10 or $12 an hour they like to use that to go after him in front of somebody who is making only $7 or $8 or $9 an hour.
I am saying to the Minister of Labour that this is exactly what the government of Ontario is doing in supporting this kind of legislation. It is trying to divide workers, trying to deny them basic rights. It is an extremely dangerous road to be on.
Does it get easier? This is the third time now; there were Bills 179, 111 and now 125. Does it get easier every time the government kicks workers in the guts and brings in restrictive legislation? I am told this happens, the more one does something. Forgive me. That is exactly what it is doing with this legislation.
I cannot understand it. The government uses the Pope's visit as the excuse. It is a major event; certainly, my family wants very much to take part in the visit of the Pope. I want to suggest to the minister that he is dealing with two important days. I do not think he has an emergency with safety or public order. He is dealing with two days in Toronto and sentencing the workers who are stuck with his kind of controlled contract for the lifetime -- a year or whatever it is -- of that contract. They are paying a pretty stiff price for the kind of security or additional facilities he wants for two days. I am not sure, given the ill-will that will be promoted by this legislation, that he is going to achieve that during that two-day period. It concerns me and it should concern the minister.
I do not think there is anything else at stake in this House. All the arguments we make about all the nuances do not mean a heck of a lot. What is at stake is an obvious undermining of the rights of workers, supposedly guaranteed in the Labour Relations Act, to free collective bargaining. Why does he not see the road he is going down? Why does he not see the rights he is negating? Why are workers and their organizations less important than doctors or the right he is talking about on a broader scale? There is something wrong here. There is something dangerous in what they are doing. It is a path that is a threat to the democratic process that most of us in this province believe in so strongly.
I am sorry, I am not trying to be the least bit dramatic. I happen to believe it. What they are doing is going to cause us many more problems in the future. This is just the beginning. We told them they would run into this when they passed Bill 111 in that long and bitter debate. This is one of the first real examples of it, a direct result of that. What is going to be the result of this piece of legislation? What is the next move? They are wrong, dead wrong, in what they are doing. I plead with this government and with the Liberals to understand that what they are doing is wrong. The right they are taking away from workers is too basic. For God's sake, let us stop now before we go any farther down this road.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the calibre of the debate has been excellent, and I commend those who have taken part in it. This is a very serious matter. I have listened attentively to each and every speaker and I do not cast any of it off or think of it in a frivolous way whatsoever.
I would like to take just a few moments to respond in a general way to some of the cautions or allegations, whichever members prefer, that were thrown out during the comments by members of the third party, in which they talked about the road down which the government was heading and the perils on that particular road.
I would like to say very briefly that we in Ontario have the largest work force of any province, over four million people. It is, in relative terms, highly organized; over 30 per cent of the nonagricultural work force belong to trade unions. We have in our basic legal framework a collective bargaining system that is adversarial in nature, with great potential for polarization and conflict. We have unions, many of which are large, powerful and committed to aggressive protection of the interests of their members.
Despite all this -- and this is the point I want to make -- we have a labour relations climate that over the last 10 years has been the envy of most other North American jurisdictions. Strikes do occur, but in less than five per cent of the bargaining situations. Moreover, in the vast majority of strikes, settlement is achieved without resort to illegal or improper activities by unions, employees or employers.
What accounts for this enviable record? What is it in the Ontario environment that has nurtured this tradition of commonsense co-operation? In my view there are several contributing factors. Fundamental to all else is the fact that the government accepts the legitimacy of the trade union movement and has thereby earned its respect, however grudging that respect may seem at times.
The government's acceptance of labour is manifested in a number of ways. First, there is the very special relationship that the Premier has with the leaders of the trade union movement. In my period as minister he has been accessible on all major labour issues and has listened sympathetically to their concerns. This is not to say that he always agrees with the propositions advanced. However, he is responsive to well-reasoned arguments and responds affirmatively and fairly to real problems.
Second, the Premier's attitude towards labour has been reflected in the philosophy, instincts and stances taken by my predecessors as Minister of Labour over the last decade. This is evident in the legislative record, beginning with the wholesale reforms to the Labour Relations Act in 1975, through the mandatory checkoff legislation, the expedited arbitration amendment to the Labour Relations Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the new Human Rights Code, the severance pay provisions of the Employment Standards Act and, most recently, in the revamped Workers' Compensation Act.
In all these statutes a real effort has been made to balance the interests of employees and employers, recognizing that the statutes within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour are remedial in nature and principally designed to enhance the rights of workers in fair and affordable ways.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have been sitting here all afternoon and all evening and I have not raised my voice at any time when the members opposite have spoken. I have listened very attentively to everything they have said.
9:10 p.m.
In summary, I think it is clear from the record of the last decade that the Premier, following his own instincts and temperament, has opted for a nonconfrontational approach to labour. My personal conviction is that the public has reaped enormous benefits in social and economic stability as well as in fairness and equity from this approach.
I know the senior union leaders in this province and others sense that the Premier and my predecessors as Ministers of Labour have followed the dictates of civility, openness and decency, on occasion laced with a good dose of pragmatism and even toughness when required. These attributes gear their own sense of values and that is one of the principal reasons that the relationship has been so close and productive.
9:31 p.m.
The House divided on Hon. Mr. Ramsay's motion for second reading of Bill 125, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Brandt, Breithaupt, Conway, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Gordon, Gregory, Haggerty, Harris, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn;
Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, Mancini, McCaffrey, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Miller, G. I., Mitchell, Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Peterson, Pollock, Ramsay, Reed, J. A., Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Ruprecht, Ruston;
Scrivener, Sheppard, Snow, Spensieri, Stephenson, B. M., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Worton, Wrye, Yakabuski.
Nays
Allen, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, Di Santo, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Rae, Renwick, Swart.
Ayes, 73; nays 15.
House in committee of the whole.
TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION, GRAY COACH LINES, LIMITED AND GO TRANSIT LABOUR DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 125, An Act respecting Labour Disputes between the Toronto Transit Commission, Gray Coach Lines, Limited and GO Transit and Locals 113 and 1587, Amalgamated Transit Union, Lodge 235, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 2.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, it might be appropriate, and it will only take about 30 seconds, to explain these amendments. I am repeating what I said earlier today but this would be for the benefit of those who were not here. On advice that was received today, I want to move amendments that would clarify the intent of the bill.
As originally drafted, the bill referred to Gray Coach Lines Ltd. as an employer of certain members of Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union. In fact, the agreement between the Toronto Transit Commission has an appendix that is entitled Gray Coach Employees Appendix.
lnterjections.
Mr. Chairman: Order. May we have some order so we can hear the minister with his amendment, please?
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: However, as article 111 of the agreement provides that, in essence, all employees working at Gray Coach are on loan from the Toronto Transit Commission, therefore all the employees are in fact employees of the commission. In order to be precise and to clarify the wording of the proposed legislation for the parties, an amendment is necessary.
With that explanation I would move that the preamble to the bill be amended by striking out "and Gray Coach Lines, Limited."
Mr. Chairman: Order. If we may, perhaps we should move the amendment to section 1 first, and we will come to the preamble when we have dealt with the other clauses, if that is agreeable. Clause 1(1)(a), I believe, has an amendment.
On section 1:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ramsay moves that clause 1(1)(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "(a) 'employer' means the Toronto Transit Commission"; and that the bill be further amended by striking out "employers" wherever it appears in the bill and inserting in lieu thereof "employer."
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Is there another amendment?
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: This is to clause 1(1)(b).
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ramsay moves that clause 1(1)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "and in the case of the collective agreement between Gray Coach Lines, Limited and Local 113, Amalgamated Transit Union, the 30th day of June 1984" in the 11th, 12th and 13th lines.
Motion agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 through 5, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 6:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) Part I of the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act, 1983, does not apply to the employees mentioned in subsection 2(1) or to their group compensation plans as defined in that act."
9:40 p.m.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take any time to elucidate the meaning of the proposed amendment. The matter was spoken to earlier today both in question period by the leader of this party and by him and me during the course of the debate on second reading.
The purpose of the amendment is very simple, and that is to remove the intolerable provisions of Bill 111, now chapter 70 of the Statutes of Ontario for 1983, from any application to the resolution of the problems that are going to be faced by the arbitrator in the negotiation of the kind of settlement that is essential if the goal of eliciting the co-operation on a voluntary basis for overtime of the members of Local 113 is to have any chance of success, and particularly the provisions to overrule the provisions of subsection 10(1) of Bill 111, which provide that, "Every act or regulation that requires or permits an issue that arises in collective bargaining by or on behalf of employees to whom this part applies to be submitted to or determined by arbitration shall be deemed to include a provision that the arbitrator shall consider the employer's ability to pay in the light of existing provincial fiscal policy."
That is the stumbling block and has been the stumbling block to successful negotiation in accordance with the collective bargaining process, the breakdown of that bargaining process and the reason we are here today. It is the stubbornness and intransigence of the government on that point that is holding up the sensible, intelligent negotiation about which we spoke during second reading of the bill.
I do not want to speak any further, but I want to give the government the opportunity to say it accepts the amendment, that it sees its wisdom, the rationale for it and the need to have the elimination from the process of Bill 125 of anything to do with Bill 111. I ask for the support of the House on that amendment. We intend to divide on that amendment if it is not accepted by the government.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, the government will not be supporting that amendment. As members know, the review legislation applies generally to the provincial public sector. In my view it would not be equitable or consistent with the purpose of the review program to exempt these three bargaining relationships.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, what the minister has said is nothing short of an outrage. He should know that. Surely he understands that one of the real problems, if there is a background to this discussion, is the fact that the deus ex machina of this whole piece has been the policy of the Premier (Mr. Davis), the cutback policy that has restricted the ability of employers to negotiate and is restricting the ability of arbitrators to come to an agreement.
The minister will know that in the matter of a dispute affecting several hospitals an arbitrator by the name of Barton stated as background to his decision that in his view the legislation set out in Bill 111 would have to be a dominating factor in his determination of the result he was going to come up with.
I want the minister to know that I think that kind of reasoning is dangerous to a fair result and is going to prove very dangerous to a reasonable result when it comes to this act. I say in all sincerity to the minister and to the Premier, since he is here, that considering there is only a month left for Bill 111 to run, if they are really interested in goodwill and in saying to the public sector, "We recognize we are going to be moving into a new era," I do not understand why the minister in that way would just reject the proposal by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). I think it is a very sound proposal; if he were seriously interested in building up goodwill, it is one he would look to.
I can tell the minister that the independence of the arbitration process is on trial in this province. He put it on trial and he put arbitrators into an impossible position. He will find literally many respected arbitrators who have said to the government of this province, both privately and publicly, that they will not participate in a process they regard as something of a fraud because they do not feel they are going to be regarded as independent.
He had the comments made by Mr. Egan when we were discussing Bill 111, when he talked about the dangers to independence. He has had comments by several arbitrators. For him simply to ignore that and to pretend it is not true, to pretend it is not happening, to pretend it is not a factor and not a problem, is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.
I think it is important for the government to recognize that section of Bill 111 stands as a barrier to fairness in public sector arbitration. They are the ones who are responsible for the mess we are in, and they are responsible for the fact that many people are not going to see that arbitrator as independent because the minister insisted in answer to the question today that he is going to force that arbitrator to comply with Bill 111.
We know what the employer's line has been all through the piece. It has been: "We have the government's fiscal policy. We are bound by that policy, we are stuck with it and we are not going to move beyond that." That has been the problem: their inflexibility. That is what has made it impossible to reach a negotiated settlement. If the government does not understand that, then it does not understand what has been happening over the past month -- and I think it does.
The government is making an enormous mistake in not indicating finally that it is prepared -- as we approach the year in which all these controls are supposed to be off -- to accept that. Supposedly those controls will be off, unless this is a harbinger of some other permanent change it is about to make. Perhaps they will not tell us about that. Perhaps it is something they will surprise us with; I do not know. But they are making an enormous mistake, and I think they should look at it again.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has moved an amendment to section 6. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment shall 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. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I saw all members on the government side shaking their heads as I made my statement about the independence of arbitrators. Since he is here, perhaps the Premier would be good enough to tell us who the arbitrator will be.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to share with the honourable member the selection of the arbitrator, but I can assure him that when that decision is made he and the public will be informed. I can only say it has been the policy of this government to select very carefully and objectively those individuals we seek to do arbitrations of a sensitive nature.
Sections 7 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 13:
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister will want to get up. It is my understanding that he has some statement to make with respect to section 13.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Part II of the bill deals with what will happen to the displaced Gray Coach drivers in the event that GO Transit proceeds with its proposed plan to terminate its services agreement with Gray Coach Lines Ltd. to operate GO bus routes.
Considerable mediation efforts went into a proposal to resolve what would happen to a considerable group of Gray Coach bus drivers, many of whom had long service records. The objective was to ensure that they would be accorded fair and equitable treatment and have their past loyalty and dedication to their work duly recognized.
To this end, a memorandum of settlement was entered into between the parties, Gray Coach, GO Transit, Local 113 and Local 1587. This settlement was expressed to be subject to ratification by all parties. A supplementary memorandum of settlement provided for an amendment and for final and binding arbitration in case the membership of locals 113 and 1587 failed to ratify the settlement.
9:50 p.m.
In the result, Local 113 has not ratified the settlement because it was dealt with as part of the overall settlement, and Local 1587, in a vote, rejected this settlement by approximately 37 votes to four. This afternoon, my deputy minister received a letter from Mr. Elton N. Lake, the president of Local 1587, advising him of the rejection of the settlement and that he expected both parties would proceed to arbitration on the issue.
Notwithstanding the rejection of the settlement, it is the view of the government that the settlement was and is a fair and equitable solution to the issue and affords protection to the interests of the Gray Coach drivers who may be displaced. It is a beneficial settlement and is necessary to protect their interests.
Apparently, the only part of the memorandum of settlement causing a problem is one clause relating to the seniority of the drivers. At present, approximately 17 drivers have already been taken by GO Transit as part of the takeover. Local 1587 appears to believe that these should be given super seniority over all other drivers from Gray Coach and that their seniority not be dovetailed with the others. It is our belief that dovetailing is the fair and equitable solution for all, including those drivers already transferred.
For the foregoing reasons, it is the government's recommendation that part II be adopted and passed without amendment.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, it is important for people to understand that the minister did not state this quite as explicitly as it is there. It is important to understand that there were two memoranda of agreement that have been signed, one on August 3 and one on August 17. It should be made clear that the government is overriding the exact terms of the memorandum of settlement that was reached on August 17. That should be made clear, because that is the implication of what the minister is saying.
As the minister knows, there were three items in that memorandum of settlement. He has only included one in the act. He should be made aware that this is what is being done. He should be aware that this has implications for the labour relations of this province.
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that agreement was not going to be changed. That feeling was conveyed to us. The leader of the third party says the minister is changing the memorandum of agreement. I would like the minister to stand up and clarify it, because if we are going to vote on this matter, we want to know exactly what the situation is.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, we are not changing the memorandum.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that the minister at least should say clearly what the government is doing so everyone can understand.
There were three clauses in the memorandum, and the government has decided it is not going to include two clauses in the act. That should be made clear for purposes of the record. I do not have it here, but I have it in my office. I happen to think that, as a matter of intellectual honesty, people should at least say that is what is happening.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, surely it is a simple matter for the minister to tell the House the two additional items to the supplementary memorandum of August 17 which are not included in subsection 13(2) of the bill.
The minister will see the reference, "as amended by item 1 of the supplementary memorandum of settlement." As I understand it, there are also items 2 and 3. The implication has been that this was a complete statement of what was decided. I understand items 2 and 3 are not going to be included. I think the record of the House should show the exact wording of items 2 and 3 of the supplementary agreement so the record will be clear as to which two items are not accepted by the government.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, all I am saying -- this is a matter of great complexity, and I know members on the other side have been involved with it for a long time, so I do not intend to get into all the details -- is that the minister should make it very clear that rather than send the matter to arbitration, the government has decided to arbitrate this matter in this legislation. That is in effect what has happened, and that is clearly what the government has decided to do.
Hon. Mr. Davis: The union does not want it to go to arbitration.
Mr. Rae: I am not here representing any particular interest; I want to make that very clear to the Premier.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I understand.
Interjections.
Mr. Rae: I am being quite serious. I am just saying that for purposes of understanding what is happening here -- and I am sure it is something people will want to try to understand and comprehend -- the government has decided it is going to arbitrate with respect to the problems and difficulties of job security. It has made that decision, and that should just be made clear.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, to clarify matters for the record, I will be happy to read out the two sections that have been deleted:
"The Local 1587 representatives signatory to this document agree that they will unanimously recommend acceptance of the memorandum of settlement dated August 3, 1984, as amended by the supplementary memorandum, to their membership at a membership meeting to be held on or before Wednesday, August 22." That is clause 2.
Clause 3, which is to be deleted, says:
"Local 1587 and Local 113 agree that, should the membership of either local fail to ratify the memorandum of settlement as amended, any outstanding issues arising from the memorandum shall be submitted to arbitration for a final and binding determination within 60 days of the rejection."
Section 13 agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
On the preamble:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ramsay moves that the preamble to the bill be amended by striking out "and Gray Coach Lines, Limited" in the first and second lines and that the title be amended accordingly.
Motion agreed to.
Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I have just a comment. The section in the preamble that really rankles no end is the section that deals with the public interest and welfare and public safety. It leaves the impression that the workers, if they were on strike, might somehow endanger the public. I find it offensive.
I do not know why the government has included that section, but certainly in my opinion it leaves the impression that workers would be responsible for something that might arise endangering the public.
I do not know how many accidents there were when the Montreal transit system was on strike. I do not know how many people got injured; I cannot recall. Certainly the press would be the first to indicate if somebody had been hurt or to attribute some blame to the unions.
I find that offensive, and I am not trying to grandstand. As an individual, I find it offensive to suggest that workers would deliberately or in any way endanger the lives of the public, and I ask the government to withdraw that section because it really is offensive to working people. If you do not come from a working background you might accept it, but if you come from a working background it is really offensive language.
Mr. McCaffrey: Oh, come off it.
Mr. Martel: My friend can caterwaul all he wants.
Mr. J. A. Reed: Do you come from a working background?
Mr. Martel: Yes, I do. My friend can caterwaul all he wants, but to working people that is offensive because 99 per cent of the public out there are law-abiding people who do not break the laws of this province and do not try to endanger anyone's life. I ask the Premier to remove that section from the bill because it is offensive to working people.
Mr. Chairman: Shall we proceed? We have outstanding section 6.
10:03 p.m.
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 6, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 15; nays 76.
Section 6 agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.
TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION, GRAY COACH LINES, LIMITED AND GO TRANSIT LABOUR DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Ramsay moved third reading of Bill 125, An Act respecting Labour Disputes between the Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit and Locals 113 and 1587, Amalgamated Transit Union, Lodge 235, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 2.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be very clear to the government that it has chosen a route which I do not think it had to choose. I said earlier in this House and I want to say it again that it is not, in our view, a question of strike or no strike; it is a question of how a government responds to what has been admittedly a very difficult, protracted and complex series of negotiations between the parties.
I am not going to say for a moment that this has been an easy matter. I suggested to the minister, and I suggest it to him again, and I suggested to the Premier (Mr. Davis) that when there is a rejection vote which is as close as the two votes were, that to my mind is not a clarion call on the part of the membership of Local 113 that they are determined, come hell or high water, to go out on strike. That is an indication by that membership that they are not happy with the results of the collective bargaining process and that they would like to see the package changed in some way.
I happen to think that that flexibility, as has been pointed out by my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), and my good friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), has been made impossible by Bill 111, by the government's overall policy of cutback and the establishment of arbitrary percentage figures that do not allow the kind of flexibility necessary to create collective agreements.
We all want the papal visit to succeed. We all want the Toronto Transit Commission to run. We all want these negotiations to come to a successful end. But I think the minister should understand that, even in a situation as complex and difficult as this one, it is a serious mistake for the government to do what it has done in the sense that it is only going to cause a deterioration ultimately in relationships between employers and employees in the public sector and in the private sector.
I talked about a new barbarism at work in the private sector and I think it is there. I think we have all seen it in the length of time that some strikes have had to go on; the kinds of lockouts that have taken place; the kind of attitude that many employers have to the existence of unions themselves, the practice which has been denounced so effectively by my colleague the member for Riverdale; the layoffs at Simpsons, and the fact that many workers are being fired after years of work and are being asked to come back part-time without benefits, without any kind of seniority, without any guarantees. That represents a very real step backwards in sector after sector.
In the public sector the government argues that "they have job security, so we can pretty well do what we want with respect to the collective bargaining process." In all sincerity I say to the minister yes, this is a unique situation and a difficult situation, but I really do believe very strongly that this kind of legislation is the kind of legislation that one only brings in in the most extraordinary emergencies.
Three weeks prior to a visit which is the subject of so much concern by all of us in terms of making it a success, there is no reason to panic. There is no reason for the government to say, "This is what it is going to be, this is what we are going to do and this is how it is going to be solved."
I happen to think that bodes ill for the future of relations between employers and employees in the public sector. As I said to the minister, I think we are going to find we will have greater conflict within trade unions. There will be greater confrontation between some sections of the trade union movement and the government.
That may be what the minister wants; I do not know. I do not know what his agenda is. I do know that is not our agenda. It is not what we want to see. We do not want to see a repeat of British Columbia in Ontario. We do not want to see that kind of attitude on the part of government. We do not want to see that kind of attitude of confrontation on the part of a ruling party.
What we want to see is some flexibility and, if I may say this to the Premier, some real imagination. We all know that the reason imagination and creativity have not been allowed to work here has everything to do with the government's decisions on Bill 111.
That is what it is all about. That is what the story is. In all sincerity I say to the minister and to the Premier it is a mistake which I believe they are going to regret and it is going to prove to be very short-sighted.
There was a member in the federal House who used to talk about pain and gain. I think what we have seen here is simply short-term gain for long-term pain. The government is gaining what it regards as a window of peace and tranquility, but it is purchasing that window at a very high price, a price I do not think it was necessary to pay.
I and members of my party happen to believe it was possible to reach a negotiated settlement. It would not have been easy. No one could pretend it would have been easy. I can tell the minister and the Premier there would have been an awful lot of people pushing very hard to get a negotiated settlement. There would have been an awful lot of goodwill and determination to say, 'Come on, let us get that agreement and get it going."
Instead, we had a government that in my view jumped the gun, ordered the second vote too early, made mistakes and made it difficult to reach an agreement. I do not think the parties were wide apart. I think the parties were very close together. That has been the fundamental disagreement and the fundamental problem. When government loses its impartiality, as it has done in these disputes, it is a rough time and it is a tough day.
I would simply like to repeat what I have said before. These are issues that are fundamentally political questions which ultimately are going to be decided in another arena -- not in this hall and not this evening, tomorrow evening, Friday evening or any other time. They are going to be decided at the ballot boxes in Ontario when the time comes for people to decide whether they really think the authoritarian route is the only route to go. I happen to think that is the question people have to confront and deal with. We are ready for that battle any time the government chooses to call it.
10:17 p.m.
The House divided on Hon. Mr. Ramsay's motion for third reading of Bill 125, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Brandt, Breithaupt, Conway, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Haggerty, Harris, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn;
Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, Mancini, McCaffrey, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Miller, G. I., Mitchell, Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Pollock, Ramsay, Reed, J. A., Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Ruprecht, Ruston;
Scrivener, Sheppard, Snow, Spensieri, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Worton, Wrye, Yakabuski.
Nays
Allen, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, Di Santo, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Rae, Renwick, Swart.
Ayes, 76; nays 15.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before His Honour appears to give royal assent I could have the consent of the House to move a motion.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed to.
MOTION
SUMMER RECESS
Hon. Mr. Wells moved that when the House adjourns today it stands adjourned until October 9, 1984, as ordered on June 27, 1984, the terms and conditions provided by that order to apply.
Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Since the House will not be sitting in September, I am sure all members of the House will want to join me in recognizing the contribution of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), in that on September 10 of this year he will be celebrating his 20th anniversary as a member in this House.
Mr. Speaker: Obviously, everybody sends best wishes and looks forward to seeing him on October 9.
Mr. Mancini: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to bring to the attention of the House that yesterday my colleague and good friend the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) celebrated his 65th birthday and he is going to use his first old age pension cheque to throw a party for all of us.
Mr. Speaker: Are you all familiar with the motion? Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?
Motion agreed to.
The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his place upon the throne.
ROYAL ASSENT
Hon. Mr. Aird: Pray be seated.
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed a certain bill to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.
Assistant Clerk: The following is the title of the bill to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:
Bill 125, An Act respecting Labour Disputes between the Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit and Locals 113 and 1587, Amalgamated Transit Union, Lodge 235, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local No. 2.
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this bill.
The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.