EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
CONTENTS
Tuesday 23 November 1993
Employment Equity Act, 1993, Bill 79, Ms Ziemba \ Loi de 1993 sur l'équité en matière d'emploi, projet de loi 79, Mme Ziemba
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND) for Ms Harrington
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Duignan
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Tilson
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Beall, Kathleen, legal counsel, Ministry of Labour
Ministry of Citizenship:
Ziemba, Hon Elaine, minister
Alboim, Naomi, deputy minister
Bromm, Scott, policy analyst
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: Joyal, Lisa, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1628 in room 228.
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
Consideration of Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women / Loi prévoyant l'équité en matière d'emploi pour les autochtones, les personnes handicapées, les membres des minorités raciales et les femmes.
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I'd like to call the meeting to order, please. Mr Murphy will be here shortly. He said he would only take five minutes, and we've waited a little longer than that, so I think we can begin. When he comes, he'll just be part of those discussions. We are on subsection 13(4).
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I thought we were going back to section 10.
The Chair: We will, as soon as we complete 13.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I move that section 13 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Filing of copy of plan
"(4) Despite subsection (3), after revising a plan, the crown in right of Ontario shall file a copy of the revised plan with the commission."
This is really a consequential amendment that was required because of the amendment to section 11 obligating the Ontario Public Service to file its employment equity plans with the commission. The amendment simply ensures that the OPS, Ontario Public Service, also files its revised plans.
The Chair: Any discussion on that? Any debate on the motion? Seeing none, all in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion carries.
To the whole section now: Shall section 13 carry, as amended? Agreed. That carries.
We'll go back to section 10. What we had in section 10 was 10(5) to be dealt with. It was a PC motion and we had postponed it because we didn't have the critic there at the time. So we'll go back to that.
Mrs Witmer: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Protection of employer
"(5) An employer who fails to comply with the obligations imposed under this act as a result of the seniority rights referred to in subsection (3) is not, for that reason alone, in breach of this act."
In speaking to that motion, this amendment would excuse the employer from non-compliance with the act if it is due to the seniority clause. Obviously, if this legislation is going to protect the union seniority clause and place no obligation on the union for implementing employment equity while at the same time making the employer liable for failing to comply with the legislation without any exception when the employer's efforts are effectively frustrated by the seniority clause, this is certainly most unacceptable. So this is an attempt to bring fairness to the act. If we're going to have seniority, obviously we need to be fair to the employer, and if he can't meet his obligations, this would excuse him if it's based on the seniority rights.
The Chair: Discussion on that motion?
Interjection.
Mr Scott Bromm: Just to clarify, seniority would be taken into account in the act already in two respects. First, the effect of seniority would be taken into account in the goal-setting process, which is set out in the draft regulations, because they require the employer to consider their internal availability when setting the numerical goals and the internal availability of candidates would be impacted by the seniority provisions that are in existence in the workplace. So the goal-setting model itself should reflect seniority as it exists in the workplace. Second, seniority would be taken into account through section 10, which says that the employer need only make all reasonable efforts, which says that the numerical goals, when they are set, are not set as absolute liability goals but only goals that the employer has to make all reasonable efforts to obtain. A failure to obtain them based on any legal requirement would be taken into account in the all-reasonable-efforts defence.
The Chair: Further debate or discussion?
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Two things, if I can, Mr Chair. You started the committee without me and I gather you said something about that on the record and I do want to note that I was here in fact at 3:30, I was here again at 4 o'clock and then was here again shortly after and was ready to proceed at all of those times.
The second thing is, I do think that this amendment makes some sense in the context of what the government has now done in terms of the denuding of employment equity by virtue of subsection 10(3) and 10(4). So I think this makes some sense and we'll be supporting it.
The Chair: If we're ready for the vote, all in favour of section 10, Mrs Witmer's amendment.
Mrs Witmer: Recorded vote.
The Chair: On a recorded vote.
All those in favour?
Ayes
Murphy, Witmer.
The Chair: Opposed.
Nays
Akande, Carter, Fletcher, Malkowski, Mills, Winninger.
The Chair: That motion is defeated.
On section 10, then: Shall section 10 carry, as amended? That carries.
On section 11, Ms Witmer's amendment 11(1)(c).
Mrs Witmer: I move that clause 11(1)(c) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"The implementation of measures to reasonably accommodate members of the designated groups in the employer's workforce."
This is simply consistent with, I think, the government's intention to do this, based on the reasonableness, and so I've simply added here the word "reasonably" to the clause.
The Chair: Debate on this motion.
Mr Fletcher: We cannot support this amendment. After the discussion yesterday and what we were talking about, the government feels it tends to weaken the legislation. If we remember the discussion we had yesterday -- and let me just say, Mr Murphy, we do realize you were here and we did ask that we wait.
Mr Murphy: No, that's fine. I just wanted, for my purposes -- can I speak to it, Mr Chair? While I agree with how Mr Fletcher's going to vote, I think he makes exactly the wrong argument as to why. To argue that the words "reasonably accommodate" weakens the bill implies that a reasonable test is going to weaken it in other places where your whole test is reasonable progress, reasonable efforts. I think it's a nonsensical argument.
I think a far more sensible argument, unfortunately, against this is that this is not the section that imposes the standard. This outlines what the plan has to deal with if the standard is of what those measures are going to be, as found in other sections, and we've had debates about what that standard should be. I lost some -- I can't remember whether I won any on it, but I certainly lost some. This just isn't an appropriate section for an amendment that incorporates a standard into it, because this is not a standard section. While I understand what Mrs Witmer is trying to do, I don't think this is the right place for that, just on a logic-of-the-bill kind of argument.
The Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, all in favour of Mrs Witmer's motion? Opposed? That motion is defeated.
Clauses 11(1)(d), (e) and (f), PC motion.
Mrs Witmer: I move that subsection 11(1) of the bill be amended by adding the word "and" at the end of clause (d), by striking out "and" at the end of clause (e) and by striking out clause (f).
Simply, this would strike out clause (f), which of course would permit the government to modify the criteria of an employment plan by regulation. It obviously does create a tremendous amount of concern in the eyes of many people in this province if the government, simply by the stroke of a pen, can do whatever it wants and make whatever changes it wishes to make by the regulations. It's a very dangerous clause to have in here and we would like to see that removed.
Mr Fletcher: We do not support this amendment. We feel it removes the power to prescribe any further items in the plan.
Mr Murphy: I think this is a sensible amendment. We've had considerable debate within the committee, as well as a number of submissions from the public, about the degree to which important parts of the bill have been dumped into the regulations, and that it's important for a bill like this to be as clear as possible in the act. I think this is a bit of a red flag, this one. In response to Mr Fletcher's point there are two responses, to be slightly redundant.
The first is that I think being clear in this provision about what the plan must be and to not leave the out is appropriate for certainty out in the real world in terms of what this is going to be and how it's going to work. In terms of modifications that may come up arising out of experience, we may very well find that is appropriate. However, as you'll no doubt note, much later on in this bill there is an intention that this bill and its enforcement and enactment be subject to a continuing review. I think it's appropriate that the kinds of changes you'd want to do be subject to a legislative review and not a regulatory review, which is the relative unaccountability of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I think this is a sensible amendment and one that can and should be supported.
1640
Mrs Witmer: Speaking further to the preparation of the employment equity plan, I had an opportunity to do some travelling throughout the province last week to hear from the employer community, and there certainly is a tremendous amount of fear and alarm at the prospect of implementing an employment equity plan.
One of the things I think we need to realize is that there needs to be at least some certainty. If we're going to have these (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) points that are specific and lead them to understand what it is they're supposed to do, that's one thing, but if at the stroke of a pen you can do whatever else you want, that in January you might make a change and in February another one, it is going to create mass confusion in the province as well as a great deal of uncertainty.
I had a TV show last night, a phone-in show. I want to tell you, some of the questions were regarding the employment equity legislation. There's a lot of uncertainty, and this section (f) simply adds to that uncertainty by saying you can do whatever you want, as prescribed by the regulations, really at any time.
People in this province deserve to know what's going to happen. It's time we are honest with people and tell the truth, and I don't think the government's been totally truthful. I'm looking for some certainty.
Mr Murphy: I wonder if I can ask a question of the parliamentary assistant or the staff with him as to what matters they see now being prescribed by regulation not dealt with as an additional thing the plan should deal with.
Mr Bromm: I don't believe that at present there's anything in the regulations which is not already covered by section 11 as it has been amended to include the reference to supportive measures. At one time of course "supportive measures" was in the regulations and not specifically mentioned within section 11, covered by clause (f). The intention is to cover those areas that may have to be added to the regulations as a result of consultations on the regulations and as a result of increased awareness of what's required in an employment equity plan over time; just to allow the flexibility to change requirements as we more and more understand what is needed in plans for the province, or for particular sectors, for that matter.
Mr Murphy: Is there any situation you can see now, with a reasonable amount of consultation, it seems to me, over quite a number of years, and then more intensive consultation in the last number of months, public hearings here, is there anything that has been identified to the government in its various emanations that (f) would apply to?
Mr Bromm: For example, there is at present a committee that's being headed up to look at employment equity as it will apply to persons with severe disabilities, and it may very well be that the results of that committee may require matters that may be put into employment equity plans that would not be covered technically by (a) to (e) and so would fall under (f).
Mr Murphy: On the face of it, elimination of barriers, identification of positive and now supportive measures, accommodation measures, goals and timetables -- I have grave difficulty seeing what else, in that general framework, is going to be missed.
Ms Kathleen Beall: The other thing this section does provide for is that as employment equity legislation is implemented and from the experience gained through its implementation, it may be that things will come to light which did not arise during the consultation which was done in expectation of the legislation that this clause could cover.
Mr Murphy: Then we get into the question of, where is it appropriate that that amendment and change be done? That's where, it's my view, we have legislative responsibility and not executive responsibility for significant decisions like that, including providing certainty in the workforces across the province. I just think it makes sense that it be done in the legislation and not by regulation.
Mr Fletcher: Just one comment: I take exception to Mrs Witmer saying this government has not been honest with people. This government has been very honest with people. It's been very upfront with this legislation. We've had public hearings and we've had public consultations. The people who have been promoting and helping with this committee process have been more than willing to share their views with this government, and this government has been more than willing to share our views with the greater public. I take exception to the fact that she is bringing that accusation to this committee.
The Chair: I see no further debate on this motion. All in favour of Ms Witmer's motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
On section 11, as amended: All in favour of section 11 as amended? Opposed? Carried.
Ms Witmer, the next section is section 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5. It was Mr Jackson's motion. Are you prepared to speak to that?
Mrs Witmer: I will do that. I understand that this particular motion has already been introduced by the Liberal caucus in section 12 and has been defeated by the government. Knowing that, I'm prepared at this time to remove that from discussion.
The Chair: Mr Jackson isn't here. I know it's being proposed by Ms Witmer. Is there unanimous consent to have this withdrawn? Agreed.
Section 14: Mr Fletcher, 14(2).
Mr Fletcher: I move that subsection 14(2) of the bill be amended by adding after "11" in the third line "11.1."
This is quite straightforward. It's a technical amendment to provide the obligation to ensure that meeting the standard in section 11.1 is the joint responsibility of the employer and the bargaining agent.
The Chair: Any debate? Page 45a is the number you're looking at, subsection 14(2). I think we're ready for the vote.
All in favour of Mr Fletcher's motion? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Fletcher, 14(6) and (7).
Mr Fletcher: We withdraw 14(6) at this time and replace it with 14(6) and (7).
I move that subsection 14(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Right to information
"(6) The employer shall provide the bargaining agent with all information in the employer's possession or control in respect of the part of the employer's workforce in which employees are represented by the bargaining agent that is necessary for the bargaining agent to participate effectively in carrying out their joint responsibilities, including the information prescribed by the regulations.
"Exception
"(7) Subsection (6) does not require the employer to provide the bargaining agent with information of a scientific, technical, commercial, financial, personal or other nature if,
"(a) the disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the employer's competitive position; or
"(b) the disclosure of the information meets the criteria prescribed by the regulations."
This amendment provides that employers must provide all information necessary for the bargaining agent to participate effectively in carrying out their joint responsibilities. However, if the information is of a nature that its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the employer's competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of the employer, then the employer is not required to disclose it.
1650
This is a replacement motion and is similar to the Conservative motion to exclude confidential business information from production under section 14. It provides for an absolute exemption for confidential business information. It does differ from the Conservative motion in that it does not provide an exemption for personal information. This motion will meet the concerns expressed by business that disclosing confidential business information will jeopardize the competitive position and that requiring a union to keep the information confidential and not use it for other purposes is insufficient protection.
The Chair: Any debate?
Mr Murphy: There is a reference in both subsection (6) and subsection (7) to criteria or information to be prescribed by the regulations. This is an amendment that came in a week ago or two weeks ago, whenever it was, and I assume, because of that, we do not have regulations for those.
Mr Fletcher: No.
Mr Murphy: Then can I ask what kinds of information or criteria are expected to be prescribed, and what you have in mind?
Mr Bromm: At the present time, in most of the consultations with the business community in discussing the amendment, it's felt that most of the exemptions that would be requested would fall within (a). I'm referring to subsection (7) at this point.
Clause (b) has been added to cover any situations which may come up in the future, particularly around the consultations on the regulations now that this section has been added to cover any sections that aren't already closed off, but it's anticipated that (a) would be the one that covers most of the exemptions, and, as you'll see, there is an "or" in there. So criteria do not have to be provided in the regulations at this point to provide for the exemption. It's just that if further exemptions are considered necessary in the future, the regulations can provide for them, but it doesn't stop any exemptions which already fall under (a).
Mr Murphy: This is really more a question for either legislative counsel or the legal adviser to the parliamentary assistant. Am I right in the conclusion that any regulations could not limit the protection that is provided in these sections, or could that be possible?
Ms Beall: What this regulation-making power refers to is that you're not required to provide information if the disclosure could reasonably be expected or if the disclosure meets the criteria. So you asked if it could limit back?
Mr Murphy: Yes. Maybe I should flesh it out a bit more for your assistance. In subsection (6), the "You have the right to the information" section, it provides a regulatory power to presumably define what that is but perhaps expand in certain circumstances. My question is, could a regulation under (6) limit the statutory exception under (7)?
Mr Beall: No, because subsection (7) says whatever is in subsection (6) does not require release of that kind of information.
Mr Murphy: That's what I wanted, just your assurance that this was the case. A similar question with respect to (b): Clause (b) within (7) couldn't limit the protection that clause (7)(a) provides?
Ms Beall: No. Clause (b) would be criteria, which is a different thing separate from the protection that's offered in clause (a).
Mr Fletcher: I added a word that I shouldn't have added when I was reading this into the record. Can I change that?
The Chair: Yes. Could you just read that into the record again.
Mr Fletcher: Re-read the whole thing?
The Chair: No, if you could just read that section where the word you had included was.
Mr Fletcher: It's part (a) of the exception part.
"(a) the disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the employer's competitive position; or"
The Chair: Dropping off the word "significantly."
Mrs Witmer: These two amendments which have been introduced are very similar to the two amendments that the PC Party introduced and they ensure that access to information will only be provided to the bargaining agent for that part of the workforce that he or she represents. Certainly, that was what the employer community was anxious to have happen. Subsection 7 will limit access to confidential business information, and again, it is an amendment which certainly the business community was most anxious to have included. So I will be supporting this subsection.
The Chair: All in favour of this motion? It's unanimous.
The next subsection is 14(6).
Mrs Witmer: I will withdraw that since it is similar to the government motion that we've just approved.
The Chair: Okay, subsection 14(7).
Mrs Witmer: I will also withdraw that motion since, again, it has already been addressed.
The Chair: Okay. All in favour of section 14, as amended. Opposed? Carried.
Section 15, Mr Fletcher.
Mr Fletcher: I move that section 15 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Consultation with unrepresented employees
"15. Every employer shall, in accordance with the regulations, consult with the employer's employees who are not represented by a bargaining agent concerning the conduct of the employer's employment equity workforce survey, the review of the employer's employment policies and practices, and the development, implementation, review and revision of the employment equity plan that applies in respect of those employees."
This amendment clarifies that employers are obligated to consult only with non-unionized employees because the participation of the unionized employees will take place through their bargaining agent as part of their joint responsibility process outlined in section 14.
This amendment makes the language of the act consistent with the obligations set out in the draft regulations. It also addresses some of the concerns that were raised by labour, particularly the Ontario Federation of Labour, that the bill recognize the legal role of the bargaining agent in representing its members. It also clarifies that the employer must consult on the survey and the employment systems review as well as the development, the implementation and the review and revision of the plan.
Mr Murphy: I guess this is an attempt to respond to some of the concerns that were raised specifically regarding the ability of unrepresented employees to participate in the process and to find a structure that would make the content of that participation at least similar to that of represented employees.
I don't think this in any way achieves that. It was our intention in raising these issues to try to make that participation more real, more effective. I have great concern with the degree to which there is a lot of power as to the form of that consultation, in fact perhaps even the content of that consultation, left to the regulations. Again, it raises the whole concern about certainty, about employers and employees being given the opportunity to look at the legislation and know with certainty what it is they have to deal with, how it is they're going to go about the process.
Bargaining agents have a much clearer charter, if you can put it that way, of what their rights and obligations are. It's not by any means perfect but at least it's outlined in a series of sections. Unrepresented employees do not have that. Employers do not have the opportunity to be able to look at this and know what it means with some certainty by virtue of looking at the legislation. I think that's a real problem, one that we've raised, and I have problems therefore supporting this inadequate amendment.
Mrs Witmer: I will not be supporting this amendment. I think the reasons have been adequately stated by Mr Murphy.
1700
The Chair: All in favour of Mr Fletcher's motion? Opposed? Carries.
Section 16, government.
Mr Fletcher: I move that section 16 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Duty to post information
"16(1) Every employer shall post in each of the employer's workplaces,
"(a) a copy of each certificate that the employer has filed with the Employment Equity Commission in respect of each employment equity plan that applies in respect of the employees in the workplace; and
"(b) such other information in respect of this act and employment equity as may be prescribed by the regulations.
"Same
"(2) The information described in clauses (1)(a) and (b) shall be posted in prominent places in the workplace that are accessible to all employees to whom the information applies.
"Duty to make information available
"(3) Every employer shall provide or make available to the employer's employees information in respect of this act and employment equity, in accordance with the regulations.
"Duty to make copy of plan available
"(4) Every employer shall make available in each of the employer's workplaces a copy of each plan that applies in respect of the employees in the workplace.
"Same
"(5) A plan shall be made available in the workplace in such a manner that it is accessible to all employees to whom it applies."
This amendment replaces the current section 16 and it clarifies and extends the posting requirements that are currently set out in this section. Subsection 16(1) is going to require employers to post in each of the employer's workplaces a copy of each certificate filed with the commission and any other information about the act or employment equity that is set out in the regulations. The posting of the certificates will ensure that the employees have easy access to information with respect to the progress of employment equity in the workplace.
Subsection 16(2) specifies that the posting must be in a prominent place in the workplace and places that are accessible to all employees. Section 16(3) provides authority to state what information must be provided to employees, in addition to the information which is posted, and how this is to be done.
Requiring information to be made available to employees is particularly important for participation in the consultation process, where employees may need to receive information from employers in order to ensure their meaningful participation. The posting requirements may not be adequate for these purposes. This amendment makes the act consistent with the information requirements which are currently set out in the draft regulations.
Subsections (4) and (5) require the employers to give employees access to the entire plan. This ensures that employees will have meaningful access to the plan that has been developed to implement employment equity in the workplace. We believe that, together, these amendments address the concerns that were raised by some of the designated group representatives and advocates that employees currently do not have adequate access to all employment equity information available to them.
Mrs Witmer: You indicate here, in subsection (2), that it "shall be posted in prominent places." You mention that some of the equity groups have expressed some concern. What do you mean by "prominent places" and what has been happening that has generated this concern?
Mr Fletcher: "Prominent places": In many workplaces there are bulletin boards that are up on the wall. That could be a prominent place, or the front, where the employees walk into the workplace. It could be posted there and in different sections of the plant.
Let me say from experience that each department of a workplace usually does have a bulletin board for the posting of information such as health and safety certificates. WHMIS is another one where the information must be accessible to all employees. That can be at a supervisor's station, just to make sure it's available.
Mrs Witmer: I guess there is a problem you always run into. Certainly I can remember, from my time as a teacher, you go into the staff room and there is a bulletin board, but the bulletin board becomes so overloaded with material that many people still don't access the information, even when it's right in front of their faces. Hopefully, the employee will feel some obligation to make sure they get the information for themselves.
There's an indication here that every employer in number (3) has that duty, to make the information available in accordance with the regulations. Again, I get very uncomfortable, because throughout the bill we see this reference to the regulations and we all know that the regulations can be changed. What assurance can you give the employers that you're not going to change the rules as to the need and duty to make the information available? How do you anticipate changing the rules? What concerns are there?
Mr Fletcher: As of right now, I don't see the rules changing as far as access to information is concerned unless we find that there's a common problem running through the complaint process, that the plans are not accessible. Then I could see a change. But I don't foresee any changes. Much the same as WHMIS, which can be a large document within a certain place, it must be made available for any new material that's coming into the workplace. Companies do have it in certain places. I can't see changes going on that much as long it's accessible. I think that's the big thing.
Mrs Witmer: Who's going to determine whether or not it's accessible?
Mr Fletcher: I think if there are complaints that it's not accessible, then we'll have to take a look at that. More than likely --
Mrs Witmer: You said, "We're going to have to take a look at it," meaning who?
Mr Fletcher: The regulations may have to be changed in that sense, if there is, as I said, a common thread running through that they're not being made accessible. But there have not been as far as I can remember, and I could be corrected on this one, a lot of complaints about the posting of health and safety certificates, the occupational health and safety warnings, the WHMIS. There have not been a lot of complaints about it. I think the employers know that when they have their plans in place, they will more than likely have it accessible in the same way that they make accessible the WHMIS and the other statutes that they follow.
Mrs Witmer: There is certainly some difference in what you've just talked about, the WHMIS and the workplace health and safety. That impacts on people, but it's not going to impact in the way that this legislation probably could and will in a very personal manner. I'm a little uncomfortable because I think the commission might become involved in this situation. I don't know why -- maybe it's because I've just read Orwell's book -- but I get the feeling sometimes that Big Brother is watching everybody and if you step out of line, somebody's going to jump all over you.
I hope what you've said is accurate. I hope that there will be some fairness about the attempt of employers to make the information available and accessible and that there will be employee cooperation in that endeavour.
Mr Murphy: I have two comments on this. Sometimes it's amazing the contortions that one can go through when you're sometimes trying to satisfy two sides that aren't going to be reconciled. But let me go to another point Ms Witmer started to go after, and that is subsection 16(3). The section 14 that we just passed moments ago provides the employer with protection for confidential information related to the Employment Equity Act, but only in respect of the bargaining agent. This provides an access to information to employees as may be required under the regulations related to employment equity.
I could see the possibility, in an unrepresented environment, of the commission requesting, under some regulation-making powers, that the employer provide to those unrepresented employees information akin to that which would be provided to a bargaining agent. However, there is nothing in this bill which provides a similar protection to the employer as 14 does with respect to the bargaining agent.
I have a problem with that because there is no protection. If you look at the wording of 14, it says quite clearly "provide the bargaining agent," and that's who that information relates to, not unrepresented employees. This could allow the commission to tell an employer to provide similar information or broader information -- while you're shaking your head, Mr Fletcher, I do think that allows it because that protection isn't in 14 for an unrepresented workforce.
1710
I also have a problem with clause 16(1)(b). I think the purpose of this, and it's been discussed by you, Mr Fletcher, and by Ms Witmer, is quite clearly to provide some kind of information to employees in a workplace to assist them in assessing what's going on. It makes sense, it seems to me.
I would say that what you do is that you have the plan, you make it available in the workplace and you make employers file it with the commission.
We have an amendment later on to do that. This doesn't do that. It seems you're just running around this certificate stuff. You're creating all sorts of extra paperwork. They have to create a plan. Just have them post the plan and that's it.
Some of that is in here. There are other things attached to it which I have problems with, but I'm wondering if you can show me, Mr Fletcher, or the people with you, how it is an employer has protection for information similar to that provided in subsections 14(6) and (7) in a non-bargaining agent represented workforce.
Mr Bromm: First, I'll ask perhaps for some clarification as to what exactly you mean as to the type of protection that should be provided.
Mr Murphy: The confidentiality protection.
Mr Bromm: Do you mean that the employer in providing access to any information under this section should not have to provide confidential information? Is that the gist of your concern?
Mr Murphy: I could see it entirely being possible that the commission after some experience with this act or maybe even right away after Ms Westmoreland could convince the cabinet: "Let's pass regulations. We've got to have unrepresented workforces to have access to similar information as provided in the bargaining agent context." It could even be possible that the regulations end up being similar in terms of providing a protection as what is in subsections 14(6) and (7). I'm not attributing malevolence. My concern is there's nothing in the legislation that provides a similar protection in an unrepresented workforce context for confidential information.
In other words, what I want to see at the end of the day is that if the decision is made in an unrepresented workforce that the employer provide information to employees in the process of establishing the plan or revising the plan subsequently, that as to information about what the employer's going to be up to, what opportunities are going to be created, all those things you're supposed to do under section 11, the employer be provided with the same protection that subsection 14(7) provides in that unrepresented workforce context, and that it be provided in the legislation. That's my interpretation of how this could work out and I want you to tell me that I'm wrong. I don't think I am.
Mr Bromm: I can't tell you that you're wrong, but I can tell you that how you assume the section could work is not at this time the intention of the government as to how it would work.
Mr Murphy: It may not be the intention. Is it possible it could work that way?
Mr Bromm: The reason that type of protection has not been provided is because the rights of employees in the consultation process, which a lot of this act has information that relates to, are not the same as the joint responsibility process which is set out in section 14, and the types of information that employees will have access to, which is already set out in the draft regulations, are not the types of information that would require confidentiality to be attached to it. It's not anticipated that employers would ever have to, unless voluntarily, provide information to the employees as part of their consultation process that would in any way break confidentiality.
Mr Murphy: There's nothing in here that limits a government or the commission, through the government, from requiring the same information that's provided to bargaining agent representatives to employees in an unrepresented workforce.
Mr Bromm: You're correct there. There's nothing in here that would limit that.
Mr Murphy: Therefore, it is certainly possible that the commission or the government could decide that, yes, it made sense in an unrepresented workforce to provide employees with that similar information as they're negotiating the plan, and that may very well be appropriate. I'm not debating the policy; I'm saying that may be a result that the commission or the government thinks is appropriate to do, and in that circumstance there is no protection in the legislation similar to that provided in subsection (7).
Ms Beall: Any information that's to be right under section 16 that isn't already mentioned in the legislation, namely, a copy of the certificate, and we're talking about a copy of the plan, any other reference to information, is in accordance with the regulations, which means that until the regulations have passed there's no further obligation.
It would be possible in the regulations to specify what information is to be required and it would be possible in the regulations at that point, if it was necessary, to provide the protection you're referring to. But until the regulations are passed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, there would be no further obligation to provide any information under this section.
Mr Murphy: I think I said in my first preliminary that the regulation could provide protection similar to subsection (7). My point was that I wanted to see it in the legislation in the same way. It could very well be by regulation. I do have a problem with that. I have a problem with the extent to which, again, we're dumping so much into the regulation.
I think it's simple to post it. The simplest thing to do is the employer comes up with a plan, that's the paperwork you require him to post, that's the paperwork he has to do. You don't impose any other paperwork and they file the plan. It's simple. This is a contortionist kind of thing that I have problems with. It creates more bureaucracy. It has a regulation-making power which I have a continuing problem with in this and other bills. To be fair, it's not a particular critique of this one, although this seems excessively so in that regard.
As to the other things, the "prominent" and "accessible," they don't really matter that much as long as we don't end up with them being one of those things that can delay the implementation of the plan because we're grieving all that kind of stuff. Can I ask that question actually? Does section 16 apply to bargaining agents or non-bargaining agents? This is every workforce? So it does apply. Would it possible, by virtue of the importation of collective agreements, to grieve whether it's accessible, whether it's prominent?
Mr Fletcher: No, not under a collective agreement. This is outside of a collective agreement.
Mr Murphy: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this section? Seeing none, all in favour of Mr Fletcher's motion? Opposed? This carries.
Section 18, Liberal motion.
Mr Murphy: "Every employer shall file a copy of its employment equity plan or plans and all updated information to the plan or plans as may be required by the regulations with the commission."
The Chair: Speaking to that, Mr Murphy?
Mr Murphy: I think it speaks for itself.
The Chair: Discussion? Seeing none, all in favour of Mr Murphy's motion? Opposed? That is defeated.
Mr Murphy: Mr Chair, I'd just like to note for the record that I'm again more liberal than the government.
Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): You've got to watch that.
The Chair: Subsections 18(1) and (2). It's a PC motion.
Mrs Witmer: I move that section 18 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Reports
"18(1) Every employer shall maintain reports and other information in accordance with the regulations concerning the composition of the employer's workforce and the development, implementation, review and revision of the employer's employment equity plan.
"Examination of reports
"(2) The Employment Equity Commission may examine the reports and other information only if a complaint is made against the employer or an audit is conducted under this act."
What this would do is to make the bill consistent with the federal contractors program and the Pay Equity Act, which require data to be maintained internally by the employer for examination by the government only if there is an audit or a complaint. This approach will also allow the commission to allocate more resources to education and advisory services and will ensure that employers' resources and time are dedicated to the task of implementing employment equity as opposed to recordkeeping.
Furthermore, most employers will make their employment equity plan a part of their overall business plan. Therefore, and we've already agreed that's essential, the information needs to remain confidential and reside on the employer's premises.
1720
Mr Fletcher: We cannot support this amendment. We feel that the wording in the amendment weakens the commissioner's job as far as being able to have access to the plans. He would only have access if there were complaints or an audit. We feel that's a weakening of the commission's jurisdiction.
Mr Murphy: I'm going to ask a question. While I realize this is an amendment by Ms Witmer, subsection (1) really incorporates I think, by and large, what was existing before. What reports and other information are envisaged as being the kinds of things that an employer should submit to the commission: in what circumstances, in what form, how many times etc?
Mr Bromm: At the present time, in addition to the certificates which are set out in sections 11 and 13 and the details around the certificates provided further in the regulations, there is also a report which is set out in the draft regulations which the employer is to prepare at the end of his three-year planning cycle.
The report is simply the breakdown of the composition of the employer's workforce by occupational group and in each of the geographical areas, simply to set out the progress the employer has made in composition. But that report, in the regulations itself, isn't required to be filed. It's an internal report.
Mr Murphy: Would a second plan incorporate the results of your first plan? In filing a subsequent plan, do you describe what's happened in your first plan? Is that how it's envisaged in the current makeup?
Mr Bromm: In the plan itself, there is no requirement in the regulations at this point that your subsequent plan detail what was achieved or what happened in your first plan, because it's envisioned that your subsequent plan is really a continuation of the first plan after the review. That's really the purpose of the report that has to be done, to show the employer what progress has been made and what changes may need to be made in the second cycle of the plan or the third cycle.
Mr Murphy: The workforce survey, what happens to it?
Mr Bromm: The workforce survey is done really as your first step after your employment equity education has taken place. Your survey doesn't really have any function after the original survey, which tells you your original composition, until the resurvey is done nine years later.
Mr Murphy: Are we going to continue?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Murphy: I just have a problem with the degree. It's more paperwork and more power allocated by way of regulation. I understand the concept of a report; I'm just concerned about the degree to which we could pile other information-gathering beyond the plan. That's the meat and potatoes of it, it seems to me. While I understand the attempt by Ms Witmer to amend by way of section 2, I think the incorporation of subsection (1) as it stands presents a problem, to me in any event.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I just want to follow up on what Mr Murphy has said. I agree with that. The fact is that although we could be concerned about paperwork, here we are again, we're going to go by faith again in accordance with the regulations. We don't know what's in the regulations fully anyhow.
What concerns me here is, I think that Ms Witmer's number 2 actually brought it to light wherein it says that the reports would only be shown or be examined if there is a complaint. The problem here is that it raises the question then that I presume all the reports that will be generated from this will be examined by the Employment Equity Commission.
Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): No.
Mr Curling: No? I see. Because I just wondered because, for the second thing, it begs the question whether or not this will happen. So it would not be examined by the Employment Equity Commission?
Hon Ms Ziemba: It could be. It may be.
Mr Murphy: It could be and it could be ordered to be filed by the regulations.
Mr Curling: So the commissioner could enter and say, "You must file all your reports."
Interjection: Could.
Mr Curling: Maybe I'll read it, "Every employer shall submit reports and other information to the Employment Equity Commissioner." You're saying then the regulations are there to say kind of a restricted area of submission then.
Ms Naomi Alboim: If I might, the way the draft regulations now read, there is no requirement to file all the reports. There is a requirement to complete the reports and to keep the reports on hand. There is the capacity for the Employment Equity Commissioner to request the reports to be submitted, but there is no obligation on the part of all employers to automatically submit all their reports.
Mr Curling: I hear you. Yesterday I raised the question of the regulation and the minister -- I don't want to use "adamant" -- was rather forceful in saying that you do have this regulation which is a draft regulation. Should I accept the regulation as final? I don't know if you will change the regulation again, because it is in a draft position now. You're saying that all the reports will not be read; they really only will be read in accordance to what the regulation states.
Ms Alboim: I didn't say "read." I said that the reports would only be filed if they were requested by the commissioner, according to the current draft reg.
Mr Curling: So every employer shall submit reports and other information to the Employment Equity Commission in accordance with the regulations and you're saying the regulations will say that only upon request by the commissioner.
Hon Ms Ziemba: That's right.
Mr Curling: And that won't change? You find that funny, that you won't change the draft?
Mr Fletcher: Mr Curling, you're worrying too much about regulations.
Mr Curling: Don't worry about my worrying; just worry about this.
Mr Fletcher: The legislation is here in front, and you keep asking about the regs.
Mr Murphy: Have some trust.
Mr Fletcher: You keep going to the regs. It's not a matter of trust.
Mr Curling: Trust me.
Mr Fletcher: It has been explained to you over and over where the regulations --
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Fletcher: That has been explained to you many times, Mr Curling, many times.
Interjections.
The Chair: You still have the floor, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: So trust you, trust the minister and trust this government that this draft --
Interjection.
Mr Curling: No, let me finish, Mr Fletcher -- that this draft regulation will state, as is stated now, that only upon request of the commissioner these reports will be asked for. Is that so, Mr Fletcher? It seems your attention span is about 10 seconds.
Mr Fletcher: When you're speaking, you're right. For some reason, you don't seem to understand.
Mr Curling: I'll make it simpler then. Does the draft regulation state that the reports will only be submitted upon request?
Interjection.
Mr Curling: It will say that?
Mr Fletcher: Would you like a "yes"? Yes.
Mr Curling: I don't know if your grunt is "yes" or "no." I presume your grunt is saying "yes."
Mr Fletcher: Yes.
Mr Curling: I just want to get it straight. That will not change. Although it's a draft, it will not change. Because we don't have the regulation and my dear friend over there said, "Trust me, trust us." Will it be changed?
Mr Fletcher: Regulations can change.
Mr Curling: We've seen it. Of course the regulation can change. We've seen it, but it's a draft.
Mr Fletcher: You have seen the draft regulations, correct?
Mr Curling: Yes.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you.
Interjection.
Mr Curling: We're getting another comment here, sir: "Your government didn't." But I want to tell the minister, it is your government in power now. You are the government in power and you're following the same thing --
Hon Ms Ziemba: We are saying to you that the regulation does not say that.
Mr Murphy: Today.
1730
Hon Ms Ziemba: We are actually discussing Ms Witmer's motion.
Mr Curling: Let me tell the minister, then, that Mrs Witmer's motion incorporated your motion and went beyond. I'm talking about the first phase, so I'm sure I am discussing Mrs Witmer's motion.
The Chair: You're doing fine. I think you've made a number of statements already in the direction that you --
Mr Curling: But Mr Fletcher said he was confused, so I was trying to straighten him out.
The Chair: You're both trying to do the same thing over and over again. My sense is that we've covered the point. Is that okay? You've made your points. I think we're ready for the vote on this question.
All in favour of Mrs Witmer's motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Section 18.1, government motion.
Mr Fletcher: Mr Chair, I defer to Mr Winninger.
Mr David Winninger (London South): I'd like to speak to 18.1.
The Chair: Mr Winninger, one second please. We're going to vote on section 18, as amended, all right? Then we'll move on to a new section.
All in favour of section 18? Opposed? That carries.
Sorry; Mr Winninger, 18.1.
Mr Winninger: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"18.1 Access to information
"Any person may apply to the Employment Equity Commission for access to a copy of any information provided to the commission under this act and in the possession of the commission."
Quite clearly, Bill 79 provides for access to information to bargaining agents and employees of the employer. However, it doesn't explicitly provide for access to information, including plans, reports and so on, at the behest or request of third parties. What this section is designed to do is ensure that it's explicit in the act that a person can apply to the Employment Equity Commission for access to a copy of any information provided to the commission. The commission then has the duty to weigh the application under the standards and criteria in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and make a decision as to whether that information should be released or not. It's subject to FOI provisions and it fulfils a need that certain third parties may have to access information as to the establishment and progress under employment equity plans.
The Chair: Any discussion on the motion?
Mr Murphy: Yes, I have a couple of questions of the mover. I assume "any person" could include competitors, for example, and others who could apply. I'm wondering, given some of the other sections we've been dealing with, section 18, the new section 16 and others, what kind of information he envisages that the commission could have in its possession to which a competitor or others could have access.
Mr Winninger: I would anticipate that the kind of information that would be disclosed would relate to goals and timetables for implementation of employment equity, but it wouldn't necessarily include information of a confidential strategic nature that doesn't pertain directly to the goals and timetables that will benefit the designated groups. Quite clearly, this kind of section is designed to ensure that those people who are outside of the workplace and are either designated group members themselves or advocates for designated group members can access the relevant information that they need to monitor the progress of employment equity.
Mr Murphy: A further question: Do you have any knowledge as to what the federal legislation provides on this point?
Mr Winninger: No, I haven't studied that.
Mr Murphy: Does anybody else?
The Chair: Anyone else? Ms Beall? Anyone? Madam Deputy? Mr Bromm?
Mr Bromm: To my knowledge, the federal legislation doesn't provide for this type of access for third parties.
Mrs Witmer: Thank heavens.
Mr Murphy: How is it that the information that we have about targets being met or not being met and all those things in the federal contractual compliance, how does that become public?
Ms Alboim: There is a federal freedom of information act, the same as there is a provincial freedom of information act.
Interjection.
Ms Alboim: Right. So the federal freedom of information legislation would pertain to the federal Employment Equity Act, the same way that the provincial FOI legislation would pertain to the provincial Employment Equity Act. So that information that was filed with an employment equity commission -- actually, there isn't an employment equity commission federally. There is the CEIC, which administers, and the OHRC, which monitors -- not the OHRC; the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I'm getting all my acronyms wrong. But the same provisions would apply, so that people would have access to information under the federal freedom of information act.
Just to reply to your previous question, confidential business information is also protected under the freedom of information act. So the Employment Equity Commissioner would be obligated to comply with the FOI act in determining what you release and how.
Mr Murphy: Right.
Mr Bromm: I just wanted to clarify -- I've been corrected by a colleague -- that the federal legislation does in fact provide for access to the reports that employers, under the federal legislation, have to submit. Those reports are public and the reports contain numerical information as well as a narrative on the employer's employment equity plan and its progress.
Mr Murphy: But those are slightly different plans than are being encompassed here. Part of the point is that there is an access through freedom of information. They were trying to obviously strike a balance. At least part of the purpose of access points is to strike that balance between confidential information and that which is important for people to have access to, to assess the progress.
I think I raised at some point in these hearings the issue of a plan revealing fairly strategic information for a business, especially a franchise operation -- I don't want to use Pizza Pizza, given its difficulties -- or other similar types of organizations where their expansion plans geographically can be important information for other competitors. Obviously those expansion plans are identifications of opportunities where hiring is going to be taking place over the period of the plan.
I guess the question is, have you seen, Mr Winninger, in the bill anywhere a power for someone to make a judgement about that, other than an employer, as to can there be parts of the plan that are severed, that can be constitutional for strategic reasons? Though it makes sense that those be part of the plan, you may not want to have parts of it public.
The Chair: Ms Beall, would you like to answer that?
Ms Beall: Perhaps I can assist, just to remind Mr Murphy that the freedom of information act is the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Any information that would be released by the Employment Equity Commission would be subject to the protection of the confidential business information that's provided for in that legislation.
Mr Murphy: That sort of raises another issue. We do have a significant bureaucracy under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that judges these issues. Mr Winninger made reference to balancing through the Employment Equity Commission some of the very same criteria that commission and bureaucracy do. I guess I have somewhat of a concern about a duplication of structure, of burdening the commission with a series of applications, covering essentially the same turf that's covered under freedom of information, when I suspect the commission is going to be extremely burdened by many other things at the same time.
1740
I can see all sorts of people, in the initial phases especially, before criteria are established, coming at it, testing it from any number of angles -- employees, competitors -- as to how far they can go, what they can get, what reports and other information are going to be required under some of the sections we've already debated. I am just wondering if you could speak to me about that balance.
Mr Winninger: I know the deputy minister has something to add as well. The member well knows that in the normal request for disclosure under freedom of information the initial request goes to the organ of government. In this case it would be the commission. The commission then determines whether or not the disclosure will be made, subject of course to the FOI statute.
As the member also well knows, once that decision is made, it can be appealed to the privacy commissioner, who then is charged with the task of determining whether the correct criteria were applied in allowing disclosure or not allowing disclosure. It seems to me that in a normal FOI request that dual process is invoked in any event.
Sorry; I believe the deputy minister was going to add something there.
Ms Alboim: I don't think it's necessary to add any more unless there's still concern.
Mrs Witmer: I have grave concerns about the addition of this particular access to information amendment. It says here "a copy of any information provided to the commission." I think what can happen here, and certainly it wouldn't be the first time it's happened, is that you do have individuals who would make this application based on some either frivolous reason or malicious reason.
I think if we're really concerned about equity and fairness and equal opportunity, the employee needs to assume some responsibility. I think it needs to be between the employer and the employee.
I have a lot of difficulty with burdening the system, creating additional red tape and bureaucracy and just allowing anybody in this province, at will, to apply for a copy of any information provided the commission. Some consultant could get rich applying for this type of information and then going out and attempting to generate business based on the information that he or she discovers. I am really concerned about this.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I wanted to ask the lawyer, on the amendment, suppose we have a situation where, let's say, an applicant is not successful, where the employer sends off their employment equity plan and it would include the accommodation for a person with a disability. Let's say that's in there and the person comes to apply. Through the access to information, could a third party then confirm whether or not accommodation has happened? Will that information then be given to the third party?
Ms Beall: You can make an application under the freedom of information act for information in the hands of the commission. Under the freedom of information act you would get access or get the information that is in the hands of the commission, subject to any confidential provisions. It would depend on whether or not there was any personal confidential information or business confidential information. Other than those two restrictions, under freedom of information you would have the right to that information.
Mr Winninger: Mr Chair, could I speak briefly to Ms Witmer's point?
The Chair: Sure. I want to see whether there's a follow-up question.
Mr Malkowski: Yes. Just to follow up, let's say the commission can't confirm if the employment equity plan actually has a confirmation of accommodation for a disabled person. There'd be no way to confirm then, would there, given what you've just said?
Ms Beall: I'm sorry; I don't quite understand the question.
Mr Malkowski: What I am trying to get at here is, let's say the employer has handed in their plan to the commission and within that they have all the information that's applicable, they have the information at the commission. Let's say a disabled person who has applied for something under employment equity files for access to see, to make sure that company has accommodation for him as a disabled person within its employment equity plan. The person wants to know, does the employer, under its employment equity plan, actually have an accommodation for them, a plan, a way to do this. How do they go about getting that information?
Ms Beall: If the plan has already been filed with the commission, you would have access to a copy of the plan that has been filed with the commission.
Mr Malkowski: All right. Thanks.
Mr Winninger: Just in brief reply to Ms Witmer's point that information should be shared only with employees and their bargaining agents, the problem with that is that the employment equity legislation, as I understand it, is designed not only to benefit those who are already in the workplace but those who are seeking entry to the workplace. For that reason, it seems appropriate to me that those members of designated groups seeking entry to the workplace would have an equal interest in the implementation of employment equity and for that reason would share the interest of the existing employees in disclosure of non-confidential and non-strategic information by which to measure progress towards achieving those goals and timetables set out in the employer's plan.
Mr Curling: I want an understanding of this. You said that, as this amendment reads, if they had 300 applicants for, say, a job that was advertised, just one job, those 300 people, if they so wish, could, through the Employment Equity Commissioner, obtain all the information that is provided to the Employment Equity Commissioner. All those 300 could just go and say, "I need all the information that has been filed."
That would become quite a nightmare. I was just wondering if that's what this is saying, that anyone can apply to the Employment Equity Commissioner for access to a copy of any information provided to the commissioner under this act, and then the position of the commission.
Mr Winninger: I think the deputy minister has something to say.
Mr Alboim: I'd just like to re-emphasize what Mr Winninger said when he moved this motion. This is basically making explicit what is already the law of the land. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is the law that governs all access to information that pertains to any provincial ministry, any agency, board or commission, and there's a separate provision in terms of municipalities. That is the law that governs all access to information today. What this does is purely make it explicit that this is also the case in this particular Employment Equity Act. It clarifies it and makes it very clear, but all the provisions of the freedom of information act pertain. So in the circumstance you have just mentioned, Mr Curling, right now, without this provision, 300 people could come forward to the Employment Equity Commission and ask.
Mr Curling: I understand that is the case and I have no problem with people having access to information under the freedom of information act. That has been passed and debated and everybody accepts that. Wouldn't that actually just say, of course, "in accordance with" the freedom of information act? Make it more explicit, as you say? You don't put this amendment to be more explicit. Just say that so it doesn't rattle the corridors or --
Mr Alboim: This is a matter for legislative counsel and for the lawyers to respond to. We have been advised that you do not have to say "as under the FOI", because it's an axiomatic truth. For legislative drafting, you don't add things that are unnecessary to add.
The Chair: I think we're ready for the vote.
Mr Curling: I really don't want to carry it on, but my feeling is that the point the deputy just made is the same point they made here saying, "Why put it in then?" You said you have access to it.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Winninger's motion? Opposed? That carries.
We will adjourn this until next week.
The committee adjourned at 1750.