CONTENTS
Thursday 31 October 1996
Labour Union and Employees Association Financial Accountability Act, 1996 Bill 53, Mr Gilchrist / Loi de 1996 sur la responsabilité financière des syndicats et des associations d'employés, projet de loi 53, M. Gilchrist
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
*Mr JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
*Mr HarryDanford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)
*Mr BernardGrandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
*Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC)
*Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
*Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mrs SandraPupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)
*Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)
*Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
*Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr SteveGilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC) for Mr Tascona
Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC) for Mr Flaherty
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Lynn Mellor
Staff / Personnel: Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1005 in committee room 1.
LABOUR UNION AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRE DES SYNDICATS ET DES ASSOCIATIONS D'EMPLOYÉS
Consideration of Bill 53, An Act to promote Full Financial Accountability of Labour Unions and Employees Associations to their Members / Projet de loi 53, Loi visant à promouvoir la responsabilité financière complète des syndicats et des associations d'employés envers leurs membres.
The Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Welcome to clause-by-clause discussion of Bill 53. Mr Wood of legislative counsel will be available by phone if we need any help in that particular regard. When we last left this issue we were about to begin clause-by-clause, so that's our plan this morning.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): We hadn't started clause-by-clause, actually.
The Chair: We were trying to get started.
Mr Marchese: I recall that we were getting the legal person to give us some comment about this. There was the lawyer, I believe.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lynn Mellor): He addressed a paper in the afternoon.
Mr Marchese: He had two papers that he had collected, one in response to one of the members who had asked a question and he did some research. Is all his research in your view done or does he have anything to report based on the kinds of questions we were asking?
The Chair: As far as I understand, he was finished with anything we had asked him to do and we didn't ask him to come back and visit with us again.
Mr Marchese: I was just trying to read through the minutes of the last meeting. I thought there might have been something there. He said he hadn't completed his research to be able to determine whether or not there were any unions that had received -- or how much money had been received by unions. If you don't mind, Mr Chair, I'd like to review the notes and come back to that in a second.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Marchese: I have a question there. I think the point was that unions are covered, and I was saying that they are. "The question Mr Fenson raises is that -- and I'm not sure whether we did any research -- through the limited research that may have been done we don't know who is in receipt of either $1 million worth of funding and/or an amount equal to 10% of gross revenue. You didn't do that research." And Mr Fenson says, "I haven't been able to do that during the course of the few hours that I had between the question being put and now."
I wonder whether Mr Fenson has done any additional research or not.
The Chair: To the best of my knowledge, he hasn't done any additional research.
Mr Marchese: We might ask Mr Fenson as we go through the course of this to see whether or not he has any other information.
The Chair: Okay. We will start with section 1. Are there any amendments to section 1?
Mr Marchese: I move that clause 1(a) of the bill be repealed and the following substituted:
"(a) the assets and liabilities of labour unions, employees associations and public sector for-profit employers."
What we're including here is the public sector for-profit employers and we think that if we're going to talk about the assets and liabilities of labour unions and employees associations we should also include public sector for-profit employers there as well. We shouldn't be simply identifying one group at the exclusion of the other. In my view, we should be much more inclusive and I think this would do it.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a question. What is meant by "public sector for-profit employers"? Can you briefly tell me what it involves, because when you talk about the public sector, you're talking about a very broad sector. Who is included and who is excluded?
Mr Marchese: In the public sector for-profit employers?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Mr Marchese: I'm not sure what you're asking, who's included and who's excluded. What we're doing here is adding for-profit employers, whoever they may be, where they are employers and they're making money, as opposed to non-profit employers and we're saying add them as well. So rather than asking me, perhaps we might ask -- if you're asking for specific examples, we might ask someone from legislative counsel to give us a hand. But that's the point I make. We're trying to distinguish between non-profit and for-profit employers. If you're asking specifically, I'm not sure why you would do that as opposed to understanding the difference between the two.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): He defines what they mean by "public sector" in one of their subsequent motions, motion 4. Maybe that might help Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Marchese: That's what I thought I just said. I'm not sure there's anything in this motion that adds more clarity. Is that what you're asking, Mr Grandmaître?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, I think that's very helpful, but again, when you talk about the public sector, God, oh God, that's a wide range, a very wide range.
Mr Marchese: But can I ask you, Mr Grandmaître --
The Chair: Okay. Let's have a little bit of order here.
Mr Marchese: He's asking a question.
The Chair: Not really, he was making a statement. Mr Wood.
Mr Marchese: No, he's actually asking a question.
The Chair: He basically said that's a very wide range. That's not a question. Mr Wood.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I thought it was a question, as well; it was a statement or a question. My interpretation is that if you have a nursing home out there that is non-profit, if you have a nursing home out there that's profit, if you have a retirement home out there that's profit or a retirement home out there that's not profit, they're both being given funding from the province to operate. Whether you're a non-profit or a profit, if you're going to have them disclose the salaries, it should be done on a fair basis, rather than just saying for non-profit nursing homes, they'll be treated one way, and for private companies, even though they're getting 100% of their funding from the government, it would be treated in another way. Private companies that are receiving all of their funding from the government and non-profit should be all treated in the same way.
This discussion came up under Bill 26 and it is quite obvious that there is a certain amount of discrimination out there between the public sector and the private sector and we think that shouldn't necessarily be the case.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Just one question, probably to clarify, of Mr Marchese: Can you give us an example of some of these public sector companies that you're thinking of?
Mr Marchese: Mr Wood just mentioned a few. Nursing homes would be an example; for-profit day care is an example. The question I have of both you is, what is your concern around this?
Mr Sergio: I don't have a concern, I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of your amendment. If that's your explanation, that's fine.
Mr Marchese: I was just curious. I wanted to understand --
Mr Sergio: I have no problems with that.
Mr Marchese: -- the questions you're raising. Do you think they should be included in there, Mr Grandmaître, or should they be excluded?
Mr Sergio: I was asking the questions for my information.
Mr Marchese: Oh, I see.
Mr Gilchrist: For the benefit of Mr Marchese, in his own motion 6 he further defines who it is he's dealing with. It's not the little nursing home that might be getting a little bit of money, it's somebody who gets at least $1 million. I'm sure it was not his intent to mislead either of the two members from the official opposition.
It really is exactly the same as the definition in Bill 26. I appreciate their interest in adding it to the bill, but it's completely academic because everybody they intend to cover was already covered in Bill 26 under the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act. Every name of every public sector for-profit employer, whether you're Ontario Place or a large nursing home, that received that amount of money was already disclosed on March 31 of this year.
It's been a few months since we had our debate on the bill, but you may recall that the inspiration for the bill was the fact that we had already targeted certain tax-exempt organizations and it was merely the addition of labour unions and employees associations.
The public sector for-profit employers are all covered. There is not one in this province -- on the assumption that your definitions are the ones you're sticking to, so your motion 6 -- that received $1 million or 10% of its gross revenues for the year if the funding is $120,000 or more -- those people are already covered.
I will be voting against this motion purely and simply because it's redundant. As I go through all the NDP motions in every case -- I believe I can say in every case -- all they have done is added the words "public sector for-profit employers" after the words "labour unions and employees associations."
I appreciate their interest, but I think the argument, once made and once addressed, really touches on almost every amendment before us here today. I would hope, with that clarification, that my friends from the official opposition would join with us in agreeing that this is redundant. In fact, it changes the whole tone and tenor of the bill which was meant to close a loophole, not redouble the efforts that have already been expended.
Mr Grandmaître: What we're being told is that what's in Bill 26 or part of Bill 26 applies to Bill 53. It's a done deal. Right?
Mr Gilchrist: The addition that the third party proposes, yes, all of those people are already covered under that schedule in Bill 26.
Mr Sergio: And includes this amendment as well.
Mr Grandmaître: That's right. It would include what the third party is trying to do, to include -- let me see, the assets and liabilities of labour unions and employees.
Mr Gilchrist: Again, it's completely redundant because the clause already says "assets and liabilities of labour unions and employees associations." All they've done is add the words "and public sector for-profit employers."
That's already covered under a different statute. I don't know why we would want to be doing that. You folk are more experienced than I around here, but I would think any time you try to cover the same subject off in two bills, you're just inviting some kind of confusion or controversy at some point down the road. Which bill takes priority if one was to ever be amended? You would have inevitable confusion out there.
My submission would be that we treat the public sector for-profit employer amendments throughout the course of today as just that, perhaps an oversight but something which is really unnecessary because it's already covered off in a different statute.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, have you got anything additional?
Mr Marchese: What I would like is for Mr Fenson to be present to help us out with this.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Is that motion not out of order, if it's totally redundant?
The Chair: No, the motion's not out of order.
Mr Marchese: What we need is Mr Fenson here to help us out because I raised questions last time and we said, "Aren't unions covered already in this?" He said, "Yes, they may be, but we're not quite sure how many of them might be getting the $100,000 or" -- whatever language -- "$1 million or an amount equal to 10% of gross revenue." Mr Gilchrist raises the point that what I'm raising is redundant because it's already covered. It is difficult to say we need to trust his word. I don't. We need Mr Fenson here to help them out and help us out with some clarity around this.
1020
The Chair: We have sent out a search party for Mr Fenson. He will be here as soon as we locate him.
Mr Marchese: Could I ask for a recess? This question is fundamental.
Mr Gilchrist: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Is that appropriate? I must admit that in the eight or nine bills I've sat through, when you get to clause-by-clause you deal with clause-by-clause. I thought the members had an obligation to inform themselves on the issues before they come to this table, that this is not debate. I am not being facetious when I say this.
Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Mr Chair.
Mr Gilchrist: Excuse me, but I'm making my point of order.
The Chair: We are already in a point of order.
Mr Gilchrist: It has always been my understanding, with clause-by-clause, that we merely speak to the motion before us as members and that when we are finished talking we have a vote on each motion. This is not a question of involving other guest speakers or any kind of research people. We're supposed to have done that before coming to the table today.
The Chair: We can either resolve this issue or we can just talk about it all day long. If legislative counsel is the person required to resolve the issue I suggest we wait for him. Mr Marchese, another point of order?
Mr Marchese: Yes. When we have a matter of disagreement it's very helpful to have someone who has more knowledge than we do to help us out. What Mr Gilchrist is saying is that we should do our reading, he's done his and we're all ready to go because he's the authority on this issue. I'm arguing on a point of order that we need him to --
The Chair: Yes, I think we will recess until we find the leg counsel, gentlemen.
The committee recessed from 1022 to 1025.
The Chair: We have found the expert who hopefully will clear up the confusion about this particular issue. Mr Marchese, why don't you ask the question that's causing the confusion and then we can get the definitive answer and get on with this.
Mr Marchese: Mr Gilchrist is not here. Should we wait for Mr Gilchrist?
Mr Fenson, I moved an amendment which reads:
"That clause 1(a) of the bill be repealed and the following substituted:
"(a) the assets and liabilities of labour unions, employees associations and public sector for-profit employers."
Mr Gilchrist says this is a redundant motion, that it's unnecessary to include "public sector for-profit employers" because they're already included in Bill 26. Our reading is that they were not included and that's why this motion is before us. Mr Gilchrist argues differently. Do you have any knowledge as to this issue one way or the other?
The Chair: I'm going to get Mr Gilchrist to make a point first.
Mr Gilchrist: If I can quote right from the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, "Public sector organizations and government ministries must disclose the names, positions and compensation to employees whose salary was $100,000 or more in the previous calendar year." I jump down to the meaning of the word "public" in "public sector salaries." It specifically lists things such as Ontario Hydro, LCBO, Workers' Compensation Board, all crown corporations and agencies. It applies to "any organization that receives transfer payments from the province of at least $1 million or 10% of its gross revenues if that amount is $120,000 or more."
Whether or not you take my word, Mr Marchese, the exact wording in your motion 6, whoever drafted that, pulled it right out of that schedule in Bill 26. For your edification, if you would like to look through the listing of all hospitals, school boards, municipalities, universities, colleges, Ontario public sector, crown agencies and other public sector employers, I'd be pleased to share my copy of the printout that was sent to every member's office on March 31.
Mr Avrum Fenson: The only difference is the proposed amendment doesn't have the bottom threshold for what qualifies a public sector for-profit operation under Bill 26, where they have to receive at least $120,000. Your amendment would include those that come under that threshold as well, so it's different in that regard.
Mr Gilchrist: Actually, it wouldn't, Mr Fenson. In motion 6 he further defines what he means by that.
Mr Fenson: I see.
Mr Gilchrist: To be fair to Mr Fenson, he's been asked a question and hasn't had the benefit of consulting their motion. If he wishes to consult motion 6 before phrasing his answer, I think that would be far fairer to the research officer.
Mr Fenson: It appears to me that the combination of the two motions covers the same ground as Bill 26.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, that answers the question.
Mr Marchese: One of our own researchers went to pick up Bill 26 so we would be able to comment on that.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, you asked for an expert opinion, and we got one that says this is redundant and it's already covered. Are you saying now that we need another expert opinion? Is that what you're asking?
Mr Marchese: I appreciate your comment and the way you phrased it. No, I didn't say I was looking for an expert opinion through my researcher but rather that our researcher went to get Bill 26 so he could pinpoint a matter that I wanted to speak to. I didn't say he was an expert.
The Chair: In the meantime that should end the discussion, I think, on this particular amendment because the issue that was in dispute has been cleared up by leg counsel.
There being no further comment --
Mr Marchese: I want to speak to this.
The Chair: Anything to add over and above what's already been discussed, Mr Marchese?
Mr Marchese: I'm going to continue to speak to this amendment.
The Chair: Something new?
Mr Marchese: Yes, and then I want to ask Mr Fenson how I might word this to see if it fits.
During the Bill 26 discussions we were trying to move an amendment to close a loophole requiring disclosure of salaries over $100,000, not by all private companies but only those receiving significant government funding. The Tory response was made by Mr Sampson, the member for Mississauga West, where he says the following:
"Private corporations are responsible solely to their shareholders. That's the nature of the private corporation setup. Public corporations are responsible to the public purse, and that's what this particular schedule is trying to do: to establish that responsibility, the reporting requirements with respect to how the moneys are used, and more specifically, as it relates to the schedule, how the moneys are used in the compensation of individuals.
"It would be inappropriate, in my view, to have a piece of legislation on the books that would, for instance, capture a large multinational corporation and force it to disclose salaries for activities that were not related whatsoever to the expenditure of government moneys. If they got a government grant for X amount of dollars, it could potentially capture them by the scope of the net that you've carved out here" -- in response to Mr Silipo's attempt to make an amendment -- and "I don't think that's appropriate."
What we have here is a private member's bill that would capture in the net all trade unions and employee associations whether or not they receive a penny of government funds. It seems appropriate for them to capture in the "net" -- Mr Sampson's word -- all the trade unions but it's inappropriate to try to cover anybody else. Our attempt, through this amendment, was to make sure that if we're going to do it, and that's all right, we cover everybody. I'm just wondering whether it would be appropriate for me just to take out "public sector" and put "for-profit employers." Mr Fenson, would that do it?
Mr Gilchrist: On a point of order, Mr Chair: It is totally inappropriate to ask the research officer for a legal opinion in the drafting of an amendment. If Mr Marchese wishes to have a vote on this one and introduce another amendment he's welcome to do that, but this is the motion that's before us right now.
The Chair: We should clear up that it's not leg counsel we're talking to here; it is the research people. I don't know whether that's a fair position or a fair question to ask.
Mr Fenson: Perhaps you should ask the clerk whether I should be asked that. I don't know that I should be deciding that.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, this is your particular amendment. We have heard all the discussions on the amendment. If it doesn't do what you want it to do, I guess it's your responsibility to introduce a new amendment.
Mr Len Wood: I'd like to put a few comments on the record. The reason for this piece of legislation, Bill 53, being brought in, from what I understand, is that the member woke up one night and realized, in his opinion, that union leaders were not covered under Bill 26.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Wood, are you speaking to this amendment?
Mr Len Wood: I'm speaking to this amendment under Bill 53.
As a result we have the bill and we have some amendments before us now that we think are very important to achieve the goal Mr Gilchrist wanted to achieve in bringing forward his bill -- I used the example earlier -- that Bill 26 does not cover. You have two nursing homes, one on one side of the street and one across the street. One is non-profit, the other one is private, and they're both getting the same amount of money. One has to disclose salaries of over $100,000 of the top people and the other one does not have to. These same examples could be homes for the aged.
When Bill 26 was being drafted and brought forward, from what I can understand, Mr Gilchrist says there was a flaw. The working people who pay union dues into their unions are not being covered, even though we feel they were being covered under Bill 26. He's brought forward a bill. All we're saying is that some of these amendments we're bringing forward will achieve what his original request was, that you broaden the disclosure of non-profit and profit organizations and their top management people.
I can even go one step further in explaining: In Bill 26 the definition of "`employer'" means an employer in the public sector that does not carry on its activities for the purpose of gain or profit to its members or shareholders, and includes the crown and a body to which a person is elected or appointed under the authority of an act of Ontario." Clearly Bill 26 did not have everybody disclosing on an equal basis. If you make a dollar profit, you're treated in a different way than if you're non-profit, even though you might have two managers doing exactly the same jobs.
If Bill 53 is brought forward to bring more people under the net for disclosure -- in our opinion, Bill 26 already covered all of the labour bodies that represent the ordinary working people in this province -- we feel that some of the amendments that we're bringing forward, and the first one in particular, should be voted on and adopted to clarify what we think Bill 53 should mean for the ordinary working people out there in this province. There shouldn't be a class distinction between the public for-profit and private sectors.
Mr Marchese: I want to ask Mr Fenson again for clarification purposes, does Bill 26 cover trade unions? I think you commented the last time. Could you comment on that again?
Mr Fenson: Bill 26? I wouldn't think it covers trade unions.
Mr Marchese: The point I want to make is that if Mr Gilchrist thinks that Bill 26 already covers public sector for-profit employers and that this might be redundant, I appreciate that. We thought, through the discussions that went on through Bill 26 and all the hearings that people were part of -- I was only part of that for a day or two and here and there -- that public sector for-profit employers were not covered. That's what we had heard then. We're told by Mr Gilchrist now that they are covered.
It would certainly please us to have them included. If it's simply a matter of redundancy and he feels they're already covered, then he shouldn't have any objections -- he or they -- to include it, given that in his view they're already covered. This would give us reassurance that this is the case, and it certainly doesn't take away from the fact that they may already be covered elsewhere. Why would that be a problem to the member or the members? A comment from them would be appreciated.
Mr Gilchrist: I've already stated my position. I can't conceive that any responsible legislator would want to create the potential confusion of having two different bills say exactly the same thing, for the obvious reason that if at some point in the future someone makes an amendment to one of those bills and forgets that there was a parallel piece of legislation, you will have created a source of confusion where none need exist. I don't think there has been any doubt. I have read right from the précis of the bill. The research officer has stated unequivocally that the way the NDP has phrased this motion and defined the public sector for-profit employers is exactly taken from Bill 26.
If the member could tell me one time during the five years he was on this side of the table that he passed a second bill that was completely redundant with something else he had done, perhaps he could put those two bill numbers into the record right now and cite the precedent. I can't believe he would want to take the time of the staff and the members debating something that was already on the statute books. It's totally unnecessary, it's totally irresponsible, and I think it just creates a myriad of potential problems whereas right now it couldn't be clearer; it took Mr Fenson mere seconds once he saw the definition written in your motion 6 to say that this is exactly the same thing.
1040
Mr Marchese: The word "irresponsible" is a bit heavy and unnecessary. If you add some language that may be similar to other language that's elsewhere, or might be redundant, it's hardly irresponsible. I would add that I have been known, from time to time, to say that where it gives some people assurances I have no problem saying, "Let's repeat it," or, "Let's say it." Personally, I have done that in the past in a number of different areas, and I would do so again where it gives other people assurances of what they need. Obviously, that is not what Mr Gilchrist's position would be on this matter, but I certainly hold to that.
I asked Mr Fenson a question the last time we had a meeting here. I said that Mr Ross McClellan "makes other arguments and says that the labour movement is fully covered by the provisions of Bill 26 already, and `Bill 53 is not a simple extension of the provisions of the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act at all.'" I asked Mr Fenson, "Does your research cover this particular matter?" He answered:
"It's covered in the same sense that under the statute created by Bill 26, if the government grant is high enough or if it's a high enough proportion of a union's revenue, then it probably would be considered, but that means there are unions which are not covered. I have not had the time since I was asked the second question this morning to identify unions which may be brought into the act by virtue of the size of the grant. I'm not even sure there are any direct grants to unions which would bring them under the provisions of Bill 26. It may be that there are no unions which have to report their executive salaries because of Bill 26."
Mr Fenson, was there some doubt there perhaps that there might be and that you hadn't done enough research? That's why I asked you again.
Mr Fenson: What I'm saying is that unions are not specifically addressed. It is possible, as I said in the spring. There's nothing in Bill 26 to exclude a union if it does get a government grant, but unions are not specifically included. I was simply stating as a matter of fact that I didn't think that unions generally got the kinds of direct grants that would bring them under Bill 26.
Mr Marchese: But we don't really know because we haven't done the research to know whether or not that's the case.
Mr Gilchrist: Excuse me. The printout of everyone who should have been covered is in this publication of March 31. What possible doubt can you have about the intent of Bill 26? After all the time and effort you people put into arguing against it, presumably you read it. Again, we're asking Mr Fenson a terribly unfair question. The philosophical question has been answered. If a trade union gets a grant -- and again I quote right from the Minister of Finance -- "it applies to any" -- let me make that very clear -- "any organization that receives transfer payments from the province of at least $1 million or 10% of its gross revenues if that amount is $120,000 or more" -- anybody. I don't think it is fair to pose a question to Mr Fenson to go through and now name which union may have got that. If there was a union, it would be in there.
Mr Len Wood: Maybe research can help me with this, but during the public hearings that we had in June, when presentations were brought forward, there were some comments made that there was no reason for this particular bill at all because the Labour Relations Act of Ontario, under subsection 92(1), covers this: "Every trade union shall upon the request of any member furnish the member, without charge, with a copy of the audited financial statement of its affairs to the end of its last fiscal year...." The argument is that you have a bill being brought forward where everything that is being requested is already covered under the Labour Relations Act.
Mr Gilchrist: On another point of order, Mr Chair: Can we get Mr Wood here? It is the right of this committee to have him, and I feel personally slighted that just because it's a private member's bill I guess no one thought it important enough to have him present today. Obviously, if we are going to ask legal questions, he should come. If Mr Fenson has it within his knowledge to give the answer, that's fine.
The fact of the matter is that you've just answered your own question -- if a member asks. This bill does not make any member have to expose himself to the vitriol and intimidation of other people. It is a matter of law. If this bill were to pass, every union would have to disclose its statements, just like every publicly traded company, without being asked.
Mr Len Wood: I'm surprised that the Chair would allow a member to rudely interrupt during the comments I was making and take over.
The Chair: We're going to see if Mr Wood is available. We'll recess until we get an answer on that.
The committee recessed from 1046 to 1108.
The Chair: Okay, we'll get back to business here. We have Mr Wood with us now, legislative counsel, who can possibly clear up the confusion about this particular amendment for us. Mr Wood, you understand the cause of the confusion. Would you like somebody to ask you a question? Would you prefer it done that way?
Mr Gilchrist: It might be fairer that way. I think you had specific questions.
The Chair: Okay, maybe Mr Marchese could ask Mr Wood a question.
Mr Marchese: Our amendment to this bill, if you have a copy of that, "the assets and liabilities of labour unions, employees associations and public sector for-profit employers" is what we're trying to add in. They argue that public sector for-profit employers are included in Bill 26; we thought, then, that they weren't. We still have doubts and so we wanted to have a legal opinion from you as to whether that's the case or not.
Mr Michael Wood: I have to preface any opinion that I give by saying that I can give you my reading of it and help you to try to understand it, but since the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act is passed and is administered by a ministry of the government, it would ultimately be the legal staff of that ministry who would give an opinion on exactly how it is to be interpreted.
Mr Marchese: I understand.
Mr Michael Wood: Having said that, it appears to me that the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act contains a number of limitations, and one of them is that the employers in the public sector who have the obligation to disclose salaries paid to their employees are limited to employers, according to the definition of "employer" in that act, that do not carry on activities for the purpose of gain or profits to their members or shareholders.
Interjection.
Mr Gilchrist: Hold on, the second half of the clause is reading --
The Chair: Let Mr Wood finish, please.
Mr Michael Wood: There are a number of limitations, but that is one of them. "Public sector" is a defined term as well, which has a very extensive definition in that act. But the fact remains that there is that one overriding limitation that it does not target employers in the public sector who carry on their activities for the purpose of gain to their members.
Mr Gilchrist: I'm going to have to ask you to then go to the definition of "public sector" because we just looked at this. I would ask the members to realize what it is the NDP has put in here, "public sector for-profit." Any business that the government sets up is done as a crown agency. The bill specifically says "all crown agencies."
I did not want to get into imputing motives, but this is somewhat cutesy in the sense that you cannot be in the public sector and have shareholders, so the definition that Mr Wood was alluding to goes on to say "shareholders."
Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I'd like to hear it from the staff, not from the member.
Mr Marchese: That's fine. I understand what he's saying.
Interjection.
The Chair: When it's your turn, I'll let you talk.
Mr Gilchrist: It's quite unfair to Mr Wood to ask him, on 30 seconds' notice, to try to come up with the names of all the crown agencies that would or would not be covered. But as a matter of principle -- and again, I would invite the member opposite to give me the specific enterprise he's alluding to. If it exists with the potential to make money, the ROM, the Ontario Science Centre, Ontario Place, the Ontario Clean Water Agency, every single one of those is covered in Bill 26, because it specifically says that the public sector or any crown agency and any enterprise the government has set up that is in the public good is covered.
You would have us believe that somehow you can be in the public sector and yet still have shareholders; you can't be. If you have shareholders, you're in the private sector, so the entire motion is, forgive me, somewhat illogical. I would invite the member, rather than waste any more time of the committee on very interesting philosophical arguments, to give a specific instance of where you could be in the public sector and earn profit for your members; not the taxpayers of Ontario, for your members. That would be like the ROM making money for the members of the ROM Foundation or a hospital making money for the hospital foundation or Ontario Place making money for its board of directors. It doesn't do that. There is not one public sector enterprise that makes money that is not a crown agency or incorporated under some other statute, which is covered in Bill 26.
If you want, I would invite Mr Wood to read the definition for "public sector" if you have any doubt or invite you to come and look at the copy of his bill, because it says exactly what I have just said to you. If you don't have a specific reference, I submit to you that you cannot be in the public sector and have shareholders.
Mr Marchese: I'm not sure that our amendment is illogical. He can use whatever words he wants. It's not illogical whatsoever; it's not even philosophical. They make a point; we're making a point. I looked at the definition of "employer" that Mr Wood was alluding to. I had underlined it. That's why I said it didn't include what we have here. I will read it again.
"`Employer' means an employer in the public sector that does not carry on its activities for the purpose of gain or profit to its members or shareholders...." so it includes shareholders as well. We were trying to get that language, "that does not carry on its activities for the purpose of gain or profit to its members or shareholders" out of that definition. They defeated that. So we're trying to include in this bill this very language. We think it's appropriate to do that so that if there is any for-profit employer who has dealings with the government, in whatever way -- I don't have to give him a specific. That's not my duty necessarily to give him a specific example. It's not my role necessarily to do that. He doesn't need to know what are the specific entities, such as a nursing home or others, that I need to cover the list for. It's not something I think I need to do necessarily to convince him.
What we want to do here is be inclusive. He's saying: "No. Crown corporation types of entities are all that matter to us." That's what he's saying, and I'm saying we need to go beyond that so that any for-profit employer who's connected and does business with the government should be included in that definition of "employer." He's trying to create his own definition of "employer," and he's saying: "Employer is crown corporation. We're done. Anybody else who makes a profit who has dealings with the government, we don't need to do that. We don't need to get involved with that. It's illogical," he says. For me, that kind of thinking isn't very logical, to be frank. They want their own definition of "employer," and we're trying to say, "Let's make sure we define `employer' in a way that includes for-profit as well."
Mr Wood has identified this clearly as a serious limitation. Mr Gilchrist argues against it because he's got his own reasons. We disagree with them. That's why we argue we need to include this definition here. We have no problem with public disclosure whatsoever. We think it's a good thing.
Mr Grandmaître: Let it all hang out.
Mr Marchese: But we also want to make sure that we include public sector for-profit employers as well, so that they're not excluded, so that we don't get into the argument, as Mr Sampson did -- and I read that into the record -- that it would be unfair because the net would be big. Well, they have no problem in creating a net for all unions --
Mr Young: They're non-profit.
Mr Marchese: -- but they do have a problem to create a net for the others. I think our amendment is quite in order, and I would urge him, if he thinks we're covered in this definition, to support it as it is here.
The Chair: Mr Sergio, you were next. Did you have a comment?
Mr Sergio: The definition that's in the amendment here, is that covered or included in Bill 26?
Mr Michael Wood: Could you repeat that, please.
Mr Sergio: This amendment here, from 1 to 4, with respect to the public sector for-profit employers.
Mr Michael Wood: Oh, the motions made by the New Democratic Party?
Mr Sergio: Yes.
Mr Michael Wood: No, it would appear not to be. It would appear that the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act does not cover what the NDP motions are covering. That is all I am saying. I can't comment on the policy, whether it's serious or whatever.
Mr Sergio: Are we saying then that the motion is in order?
Mr Michael Wood: It is not for me to rule on whether the motions are in order.
Mr Sergio: But if it's not included in Bill 26, if it's not covered by Bill 26, then it would be proper. It is properly put and makes sense if he wants to include it.
Mr Michael Wood: I can say this, that if it were included in the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, then we couldn't put it in this bill, because the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act has already passed, and there is a rule of the Legislature that once you pass something --
Mr Sergio: All right, it has been passed, but it does not include --
Mr Michael Wood: But you're right. I said that the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act done by Bill 26 does not include what the NDP motions are seeking to include in Bill 53.
Mr Grandmaître: After listening to Mr Wood's and Mr Gilchrist's arguments, I'm totally confused, for the simple reason that we asked Mr Wood to be present to clarify or to give us a better definition of "public sector," if it was included in Bill 26. As far as Mr Wood is concerned, it is not included in Bill 26. Then the amendment is in order; then we should take the vote. Let's get on.
The Chair: No further comment? Mr Wood.
Mr Len Wood: I was cut off earlier in my comments that what we have here, from the presentations we had during the public hearings, is a piece of legislation that has really no business being brought forward on that because what is being asked for here is covered under subsection 92(1) of the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act. The employees' associations and unions, whether it be the OFL, CLC or any other unions, make public to their members what the salaries are and how much they're paid. We have really a singling out of one section that represents the ordinary working people in this province that is already covered under the Labour Relations Act.
As a result, we're saying in our amendments that if this particular group of people is being singled out, there are other groups out there that in the future may receive large amounts of funding from the government. We give all kinds of examples of that, nursing homes being one. Right across the street from each other, one is non-profit, the other one is for-profit and privately run. One has to disclose, the other one doesn't have to disclose. Homes for the aged: The same thing could apply. One private and one non-profit, receiving exactly the same dollars from the government, from the taxpayers, and being treated in a different manner.
The amendments all the way through are saying if you're going to single out one particular group of people who are, in my opinion, as I was a union member for years and years, in a democratic process -- to be singling out and disposing of them in a special piece of legislation, well, we should be covering all of them. But we know from Bill 26 that Mr Sampson says: "Well, it would be very unfair to extend the net out to disclose the salaries of companies. No matter how much money they receive from the government, it would be very unfair to cover them in the net under Bill 26." Now we're getting arguments that this one here, Bill 53, shouldn't be extended to cover. No matter how many millions of dollars the government might be giving to different employers out there, we shouldn't have to disclose their salaries. Our argument is that they should all be covered and brought under the net and we should not just target the representatives of the ordinary working people in this province.
Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): It seems to me that if this motion is out of order, then all of this debate is for naught. The consensus seems to be that the motion is in order; therefore I suggest that we ask the question. If the motion's in order, I say we vote on it. If it's out of order, I don't even know why we're talking about it. So I move that we ask the question.
The Chair: The motion is in order, and in my opinion there has been sufficient debate on it, so the question I ask the committee is, shall I put the question? All those in favour?
Mr Len Wood: I would ask for a delay in the time, Mr Chair. I would ask for an adjournment for --
The Chair: All those opposed? Okay, the question is carried, so --
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm calling for a recess to acquire members of the caucus, please; 20 minutes, as per the rules.
Interjection: Not in the middle of a vote.
Mr Kormos: You bet your boots.
The Chair: What we're now doing is putting the question on the amendment.
Mr Kormos: I'm requesting a 20-minute recess for the NDP caucus to gather its members.
The Chair: The New Democrats have requested a 20-minute recess. We're recessed for 20 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1125 to 1146.
The Chair: Shall the amendment proposed by Mr Marchese pass? All those in favour?
Mr Marchese: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Grandmaître, Marchese, Sergio, Len Wood.
Nays
Gilchrist, Hardeman, Pettit, Ross, Stewart, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated. Any further amendments to section 1?
Mr Marchese: I move that clause 1(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "and employees associations" in the second line and substituting "employees associations and public sector for-profit employers".
The Chair: Basically the arguments are the same as what we've just been through for the last hour and a half on the previous amendment?
Mr Marchese: You're right, but you can never say enough on this.
The Chair: Is there anything new to add?
Mr Marchese: For me, what we are doing here is a bit of a problem because it appears, obviously, that it suits the government to exclude the public sector for-profit employers, and I think that's one-sided.
Mr Young: It's not new; we've heard it before.
The Chair: Mr Marchese has the floor.
Mr Marchese: I realize it's not new to them, but we need to make the arguments, because what they're doing is singling out unions. That's what they've done by doing this.
Mr Young: This isn't new.
Mr Marchese: I know it's not new, Mr Young, to you at least, but I think we need this for the record.
Mr Young: We heard this before.
Mr Marchese: I realize, but I'm adding to this argument. If you do what you have done and continue to defeat all of these amendments, what you are doing is simply saying, "We, the Conservative-Tory-Reform government, are interested in capturing only unions in the net. That's all that matters to us. We want disclosure of their salaries, of all union-connected folks, because that's really what matters. We want to put that on the record for people so they know, so they can go and get these disclosures wherever they want," in some convenient place and so on.
I think it's a problem because if you simply talk about unions and do not talk about other sectors of the population, then you really are attacking one sector. We're not against this, but we want it to be more inclusive. That's why we've tried to add this language. It is clear that what they've proposed does not include the public sector for-profit employers. They quite intentionally excluded them because they don't want them to be a part of this kind of private member's bill.
I think they're making a serious mistake, because it will be seen for what it is: an attack on unions. That's what this bill is all about: an attack on labour unions. We've seen their attacks on many other areas. The Employment Standards Act changes are going to be hurtful to many people who don't have unions. We've seen the changes they made to labour laws that attack unions in general, allowing scabs to enter the workplace. There's a pattern here, and the pattern is quite clear: It assaults all unions and people connected to labour in that way.
Why they would refuse to make it a more inclusive thing that would look good on Mr Gilchrist and the other members to do, so that they are not seen not to be addressing the other part of what this bill should contain -- I think it's not good. It looks bad on this member and this government to do that. So, Mr Chair, this motion is before you.
Mr Len Wood: On that amendment, I want to reaffirm the position that we've taken. Labour unions are democratic organizations, and the officers and the people from the shop floor right up to the senior officers are all elected in a democratic process and are covered under section 92 of the act.
In this particular amendment that we're bringing forward, rather than single out a particular group of people who are operating democratic organizations -- and their salaries and benefits that they receive are all covered under the Labour Relations Act now -- if we're going to expand what the member wants in Bill 26 by bringing in Bill 53, we're saying the amendments we're bringing forward would help to expand that. If people are not satisfied within the membership, they can appeal. The appeal process is there that they go to the Labour Relations Board under subsection 92(1) and demand that the union follows the law and declares the salaries.
You'll see in the amendments that we've brought forward all the way through is the question, why target one particular group of democratic organizations and not include other organizations where all or part of their funds may be from taxpayers or from the government and for-profit? Why shouldn't non-profit and for-profit companies or organizations be all treated in the same way?
We heard the arguments from the parliamentary assistant during Bill 26 that it would be very unfair to extend that net any further, and yet now we see Bill 53 being brought forward and saying they want to extend the net that Bill 26, in his mind, doesn't cover, even though it is covered under the Labour Relations Act. We're saying, if you're going to extend that net, let's extend the net farther to cover some of the examples I gave. If you have a for-profit nursing home on one side of the street and across the street you have a non-profit one, why should they not be treated in the same way as far as disclosure of salaries is concerned? They're both receiving identical, in some cases probably the exact same amount from the taxpayers or from the province of Ontario.
We're determined to continue the argument that some of these amendments we brought forward are very important. There is no fear of the unions or the labour organization disclosing the salaries. That's not the point. The point is that the feeling is they're being targeted under another piece of legislation, Bill 53, when they are already covered under the Labour Relations Act, which is satisfactory for the democratic organization that is out there. As far as I know, and I've been a member of the labour movement for over 30 years, they operate in a democratic fashion and follow the law.
They have democratic elections. They have the conventions. Whether it be at the local level or on a bigger scale for the OFL or CLC, the disclosures are there. I used to have a constitution booklet and local bylaw booklets, and all of the salaries, whether it be at the local level or at the national representative level or whether it be the president of the union, they were all available to the ordinary working people in this province who were paying membership dues to their unions. As I said before, if we're going to expand Bill 53 to capture those, we should also expand it to capture some of the for-profit employers or associations that are receiving public money.
Mr Young: With respect to the members opposite, the meaning of this motion is exactly the same as the first motion. The arguments you're hearing are exactly the same. I'd like to move we call the question.
The Chair: I think it's just a little bit premature. Mr Grandmaître has asked to make a comment on it. It's almost 12 o'clock. We'll allow a little more discussion.
Mr Grandmaître: I was going to say just about the same thing. We'll be hearing the same speeches against or for. I don't want to prolong the debate and I don't want to cut debate, but if this amendment is in order, and it is in order, I think we should stop debating and get on with the vote.
The Chair: You're requesting that --
Mr Grandmaître: We should take the vote.
The Chair: The question has been asked, should we put the vote. All those in favour of the Chair asking the question? Opposed? Okay.
Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is defeated.
Shall section 1 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 1 is carried.
We will recess. Just a reminder: There is a subcommittee meeting at 3:15 for Bill 81.
The committee recessed from 1156 to 1646.
The Chair: We are back in clause-by-clause discussion. Are there any amendments to section 2?
Mr Gilchrist: I move that the definition of "labour union" in section 2 of the bill be amended by adding at the end "and includes a local labour union and a parent labour union."
The reason for this very simple amendment: Legal counsel informed me that under the Labour Relations Act there is a definition for both local and parent labour unions, and so to make sure that I was using a term consistent with the Labour Relations Act I make this simple amendment.
Mr Sergio: Are there any affiliated unions?
Mr Gilchrist: Yes. As a concept there are union affiliations, but under our act we don't use the word "affiliation"; it's called either a local or a parent. What you and I would know as an affiliate is really, under the act, called a local.
Mr Sergio: All right. Would Bill 26 also take this into consideration?
Mr Gilchrist: This really has nothing to do with Bill 26.
Mr Sergio: Just globally.
Mr Gilchrist: In using the words "labour union," I should have been more precise and said "a local labour union and a parent labour union," okay?
The Chair: Mr Marchese, we started just a little bit ahead of you. We're looking at Mr Gilchrist's motion, an amendment to section 2. I presume you don't have any problem with that.
Mr Marchese: Hold on, please. Are we at 2a?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Sorry, what was your explanation of that?
Mr Gilchrist: Legal counsel informed me, after the bill was finished and presented, that I should have been more specific and used the two terms that are found in all of our labour codes: "a local labour union and a parent labour union." That's the only difference there.
The Chair: All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment is carried.
Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following definitions:
"`local labour union' means a local trade union within the meaning of subsection 145(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995; (`syndicat local')
"`parent labour union' means a parent trade union within the meaning of subsection 145(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (`syndicat local').
Again, this is exactly the same thing and was just a requirement to pull into this bill the definitions from the Labour Relations Act.
The Chair: Any questions? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is carried.
I have an amendment from the New Democrats, amendment number 4, that is out of order because it's tied directly to a previous amendment that did not carry. The same thing applies to the next amendment put forward by the New Democrats, number 5, and to the next one, number 6.
Mr Marchese: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Funding received from government
"(2) A labour union, employees association or public sector for-profit employer is included in the definition of `labour union,' `employees association' or `public sector'" --
The Chair: Mr Marchese, I believe you're reading from the one that I ruled out of order.
Mr Marchese: Sorry. Number 6?
The Chair: No, number 8. Number 6 is out of order.
Mr Marchese: I didn't hear you say that. Could you explain why 6 is out of order?
The Chair: Number 6 is out of order because it's tied directly to a previous motion that was defeated, because of the reference to "public sector for-profit employer." You have substituted an additional --
Mr Marchese: Could I ask the clerk, you find nothing different in this motion?
Clerk of the Committee: The second motion does not contain the reference to the public sector for-profit employer.
The Chair: So the one numbered 8 is the one we should be dealing with.
Mr Marchese: I was asking the clerk whether she felt that motion is different from everything else that has been presented. You're ruling it out of order.
The Chair: I'm ruling the one numbered 6 out of order.
Mr Marchese: I understand. I'm asking the clerk whether --
Clerk of the Committee: I'm not ruling; the Chair rules.
The Chair: I made the ruling that number 6 is out of order.
Mr Marchese: The Chair ruled that and I want to ask the clerk whether, in her opinion --
Clerk of the Committee: I'm not free to give that opinion, Rosario.
Mr Marchese: You're not?
The Chair: Number 6 is ruled out of order and now we're on to number 8.
Interjection.
The Chair: They're out of order. Number 4, number 5 and number 6 are all out of order for the reason that they deal with the motion that was previously defeated. Now, Mr Marchese, we're on the one numbered 8.
Mr Marchese: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Funding received from government
"(2) A labour union or employees association is included in the definition of `labour union' or `employees association' as the case may be, in a year only if it received funding from the government of Ontario in that year of an amount that is at least equal to,
"(a) $1,000,000; or
"(b) 10% of its gross revenues for the year if the funding is $120,000 or more.
"Proof of percentage of funding
"(3) The Management Board of Cabinet may require an officer, director or employee of a labour union or employees association to provide evidence satisfactory to the Secretary of the Management Board of Cabinet that the funding that the labour union or employees association received from the government of Ontario in a year is less than 10% of its gross revenues for the year, if, for the year,
"(a) it received funding from the government of Ontario of less than $1,000,000 and at least $120,000;
"(b) it has not made available to the public a statement or record as required by section 3, 4 or 5; and
"(c) this act would apply to it if its funding from the government of Ontario for the year were at least 10% of its gross revenues for the year.
"Failure to provide evidence
"(4) If a labour union or employees association does not provide the satisfactory evidence required by subsection (3), the Management Board of Cabinet may direct a ministry of the crown to withhold payments that it makes to the labour union or employees association to fund an activity or program of the labour union or employees association, and section 5 applies, with necessary modifications, in respect of the payment withheld."
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Is there anyplace in this bill that gives the definition of "employees association"?
Mr Gilchrist: Yes.
Mr Stewart: Can you tell me where?
Mr Gilchrist: It's in section 2: "`employees association' means an association of employees that is recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in an agreement in writing between the employees and their employer that sets out the terms of employment of the employees."
Interjection.
Mr Stewart: Please don't tell me just to carry on. This could have a major impact on --
Mr Gilchrist: That's taken from the Labour Relations Act, the definition, Gary.
Mr Stewart: I think it's pretty broad, in my mind. I'll leave it that way.
The Chair: Any further comment? All those in favour of the amendment?
Mr Marchese: A recorded vote, Mr Chair.
Ayes
Marchese, Sergio.
Nays
Gilchrist, Hardeman, Ross, Stewart, Young.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
Seeing no further amendments to section 2, shall section 2, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 2, as amended, carries.
Section 3: I have several amendments from the New Democrats -- numbers 10, 11, 12, 13 -- that are all out of order, for the reasons given for previous ones being out of order, that they are tied directly to an amendment that was already defeated. Any further amendments to section 3? Seeing none, shall section 3 carry? All those in favour --
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I'd like to speak to some of those issues.
Interjections.
The Chair: I was a little quick and I changed my mind. Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I just want to go over some of this because I have some trouble with most of them. "Not later than March 31 of each year beginning with the year 1997, every labour union and employees association shall make available for inspection by the public without charge an audited statement on its financial affairs to the end of its last fiscal year ending in the previous year."
This is more offensive to me, having lost the other amendment we were trying to put in there, because if you then put the responsibility on unions to do this and you do not do the same for the public sector for-profit employer, I've got a real problem with that. This is why we're very concerned that this government isn't satisfied with stripping away union rights: making it harder to join a union and giving employers more power over workers. They then move from that and they come to things like this. The impression they give to those following this issue, and there probably aren't too many except those who are interested in this, is that the unions are not following due process. What the unions are doing, similar to what the Tories speak about in terms of the private sector, is that they are accountable to their members, and those members who wish to see their audited statements can do so. The Tories argue that it would be unfair to include the private sector in all of this, and Mr Sampson spoke to it where he says:
"It would be inappropriate, in my view, to have a piece of legislation on the books that would, for instance, capture a large multinational corporation and force it to disclose salaries for activities that were not related whatsoever to the expenditure of government moneys. If they got a government grant for X amount of dollars, it could potentially capture them by the scope of the net that you've carved out here."
If this motion we had captured them, then in my view that's fine. If they have the nerve to be able to say, "We want to capture all unions and we want to, in 3(1), make sure they make available for inspection by the public without charge an audited statement," when they say that's all right, the cost to the union to make it available to the public at their expense, "but it's not all right to do the same for the for-profit sector as it may connect to the government," I find that objectionable. I really do. They don't find it objectionable to say what Mr Gilchrist puts in 3(1), but I find it very objectionable. I don't like it. They single out all of the unions in this way, making it appear that there is a real problem here: They're not accountable. But in the same way they argue that the private sector is accountable to its shareholders, why isn't it all right for unions to be accountable to their stakeholders?
1700
Mr Young: They don't pay taxes --
Mr Marchese: They are accountable to their stakeholders in the same way that the shareholder presumably is accountable to theirs.
Mr Young says they don't pay taxes -- and I'm not sure quite what I heard. Look at the banks. Banks run our lives with all of the money they take from us, and it is our money that they use. Do the banks then become accountable to us for the money that they use, where 90% of the deposits that go into those banks are ours? Not the shareholders. In fact, the shareholders of the bank contribute 10% of their own private money. The rest of the money is the public's. Do they make themselves accountable to us? Do they provide an audited statement that is available to us, or legible or readable to the rest of the public, where they use our money for the interest of the 10% that is the shareholders? They don't do that. Why shouldn't we be making them accountable to us in the same way that we force all of the unions to do that? I find it objectionable.
I don't like the way subsection 3(1) reads. I could have lived with it if we captured in the net the for-profit sector, because if you can do it for one, if you can force it with your numbers on the unions, then I say force it on the for-profit sector. I would have lived with that, but to simply single out one sector and not the other because of your ideology, I just can't support it.
I'm speaking to subsection 3(1), Mr Chair. Shall I do that for (2), (3) (4), or how do you wish to proceed?
The Chair: We vote on the whole section as a section, so if you have some more comments on the section.
Mr Marchese: I want to read through the different sections.
Subsection 3(2): "The statement shall be certified by the treasurer or any other officer of the labour union or employees association responsible for the handling and administration of its funds." That's fine.
Subsection 3(3): "The statement shall indicate the year to which the information in it relates and shall list the assets and liabilities of the labour union or employees association in accordance with the standards that may be prescribed by the regulations made under this act." Okay.
Subsection 3(4): "A labour union or employees association required by this section to make a statement available to the public by March 31 in a given year shall allow the public to inspect it without charge at a suitable location on the premises of the labour union or employees association at any time during the normal working hours of the labour union or employees association throughout the period beginning March 31 and ending on March 30 of the following year." Same problem I've got with this in terms of the "allow the public to inspect it without charge." There are two problems here.
The union has to pick up the cost, which makes it appear like they've got loads of money. It's all right if we waste the union's money because we don't really give a damn, and that's a problem. They don't seem to mind that the union will bear the cost of this particular problem because I don't think they care whether the unions are impoverished by it or not, that they have to spend some money doing that or not, because I presume they would argue it's for the public interest. That's why they say "at a suitable location on the premises of the labour union." Oh yea, "the public to inspect it without charge."
Again, if we had built into this the for-profit sector I would have lived with it because the conditions would be the same, even if I find them a bit objectionable. But there is no balance here. In fact, there is a bias against unions. And there's no attempt to say, "Yea, it might be a reasonable thing to try to capture within the same net the for-profit sector." So I've got a problem there. So that's subsection 3(4).
I would really like to hear from the government members on this matter so that I have a sense of what they think about the comments I made.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Marchese. Any further comment?
Mr Sergio: I have a question of Mr Marchese here with respect to the inspection of statements for different -- whatever. Do you think that it's required, a notification period, or an in- writing request, or just barge in, say any time during working hours? Do you think it requires some time notification, let's say 24 hours, say by letter; anything at all?
Mr Marchese: I'm not sure. What he writes here is "to make a statement available to the public by March 31."
Mr Sergio: I'm reading from your amendment here.
Mr Marchese: My amendment? Which amendment?
The Chair: There is no amendment here. We're dealing with a section. There are no amendments to the section.
Mr Marchese: There is no amendment to this particular section. I'm speaking to the section and I'm just --
Mr Sergio: Okay, section, yes.
Mr Marchese: On this section there is no amendment.
The Chair: There is no amendment to this section.
Mr Marchese: I'm just speaking to their motions and I'm speaking to what I find objectionable.
Mr Sergio: Is this an NDP motion? What is this?
The Chair: Yes, that's to section 4. Is that number 14?
Mr Sergio: I'm on 13.
The Chair: Number 13 is out of order.
Mr Marchese: That's section 4. This is subsection 3(4).
Mr Sergio: Okay, I'm on 13; I'm sorry.
The Chair: Any further discussion? All those in favour --
Mr Marchese: Recorded vote.
The Chair: -- of the section, recorded vote, section 3.
Ayes
Danford, Gilchrist, Hardeman, Ross, Stewart, Young.
Nays
Marchese, Sergio.
The Chair: Section 3 is carried.
Mr Gilchrist: I move that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same, parent labour union
"(1.1) Not later than March 31 of each year beginning with the year 1997, every parent labour union shall make available for inspection by the public without charge a written record of the amount of salary and benefits that the parent labour union and its local labour unions in aggregate paid in the previous year to or in respect of an employee to whom they in aggregate paid at least $100,000 as salary."
Just to speak briefly to this, again, legal counsel advised that rather than just say "labour union," there was a need to specify that under the Labour Relations Act there are both parent labour unions and local labour unions. It clearly is the intent that whatever aggregate salary is paid should be the amount that forms the basis of determining whether someone should have their salary disclosed, no different than it is in the public sector. I'm sure the members opposite would agree we would not want to be treating someone differently whether they work for the parent organization or for one of the locals. This ensures that there is that strict definition of both parent and local in the act.
The Chair: Any further comment? All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Any further amendments to section 4?
Mr Marchese: I want to speak to section 4.
The Chair: Before you do that, Mr Marchese, as you know I have several amendments -- 21, 22, 23 -- that are all out of order, for the reasons given before.
Interjection.
The Chair: Sorry, my mistake. Numbers 13 to 19 are out of order. Now we have number 20, which is Mr Gilchrist's amendment.
1710
Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Chair. Sorry, I didn't want to presume to leap ahead until you'd made your ruling.
I move that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same, parent labour union
"(3.1) For any year beginning in the year 1996 in which a parent labour union and its local labour unions have no employees to whom they in aggregate paid at least $100,000 as salary, the parent labour union shall, not later than March 31 of the following year, make available for inspection by the public without charge a written statement, certified by its highest ranking officer, that the parent trade union and its local trade unions in aggregate paid no employees in the year a salary of $100,000 or more."
Again, this is consistent with the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, which merely acts as a test to ensure that every organization has in fact reviewed the process and has satisfied itself that there are no members who qualify, who reached that threshold. Again, the change from what is in the act itself is merely to define that there are parent labour unions and local labour unions and to give that definition here in the act.
The Chair: Any comment on that amendment? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Now there are amendments 21, 22 and 23 put forward by Mr Marchese that are out of order. Mr Marchese, you had some comments on section 4.
Mr Marchese: I just want to go back to what Mr Ross McClellan said to this committee on June 27 because, as he stated, and I'm in full agreement with what he said -- I fully support the principle of financial accountability. I think we should all have a good sense of what people are making. I think it's good. I don't believe it should be just for the public sector and unions. I really believe it should be for the for-profit sector as well. That's why I am a bit upset about having to support this particular bill, because it's one-sided and it's an attack on labour unions. That's really what it's all about.
Mr Ross McClellan said the following in committee, and I happen to agree with most of what he says, on the issue of accountability, on the principle of financial disclosure: "In many labour organizations the salary of officers is disclosed as a constitutional requirement." The way it's presented in this bill makes it appear that they don't do that and that the unions are not accountable to their members. What he said in that statement is that not only does he support disclosure, but they are required to do so constitutionally.
"To cite just one example, the constitution of the Ontario Federation of Labour, in articles 6, 7 and 8, states and lists the salaries of its three full-time officers, and for your information, our president, Gord Wilson, is paid $81,000 per annum." So they have no problem telling you what the salary is. "I'm aware that the constitution of the United Steelworkers also -- the salary of the officers is set in convention by the membership elected to the convention.
"Labour unions are democratic organizations. The officers of the unions, from the shop floor to the senior officers, are elected by secret ballot vote of the membership and, as is the case with all elected officials, including yourselves, they're fully accountable to their constituents for their actions....
"The bill basically does two things: (1) It requires labour unions to make available to the public without charge an annual statement of their assets and liabilities..., and (2) an annual record of the names, positions, salaries and benefits of employees who receive more than $100,000 a year. That's the second provision of the bill."
He speaks to the first requirement and says: "I refer you to section 92 of the Labour Relations Act of Ontario, the section entitled `Duty of union to furnish financial statements to members.' Section 92(1): `Every trade union shall upon the request of any member furnish the member, without charge, with a copy of the audited financial statement of its affairs to the end of its last fiscal year,' and it goes on to detail the requirement.
"Subsection (2): `Where a member of a trade union complains that an audited financial statement is inadequate, the board' -- that is, the Ontario Labour Relations Board -- `may inquire into the complaint and the board may order the trade union to prepare another audited financial statement in a form and containing the particulars that the board considers appropriate.' In other words, if there is the slightest concern on the part of any member of a labour union, they have the right in law to go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and not only demand a copy of the financial statements, the audited statements, but they can make an appeal to the board to investigate any matter that they think needs investigation, and the board has the power to do so."
He argues: "The provisions of Bill 53 are redundant in this respect, the first purpose of the bill," and that "the enforcement provisions in Bill 53 are incredibly weak in comparison with the very strong enforcement provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act."
Why is it that we have this before us? That is the question he asks and the question I ask. The leaders are accountable to their membership. If they request an audited statement or a copy of financial statements, they can get it. If there is a complaint, it can be investigated by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. So the various mechanisms for board members to be satisfied about what is going on in the unions are met. That is already built into their constitution.
Why is it that we want to somehow give the impression that all this is shrouded in secrecy and that that's all right for unions, but it's not all right for us to be able to get to the private sector? Because Mr Sampson and these other fine Reform members of this party say: "That's not good for the private sector. We don't think it's right for them, because shareholders shouldn't have to be brought into this and have to disclose what they make." I think that's wrong. That's a real problem for me to accept. If they have a constitution where the members are satisfied that they have access and that they know what their own members make, why are these guys over here after these unions? Why are they doing that?
I haven't heard from them. I was waiting for Mr Gilchrist to respond to what I said. Why is it, again, that they're excluding the for-profit people? He was saying before, "Oh, it includes crown corporations." Okay, that's fine. I wasn't talking about crown corporations; I was talking about the for-profit employer sector. These are people who I think should also be brought into this net. He refuses to give an explanation of why they should not be included, and I want to hear about that.
I find section 4 objectionable not because we shouldn't know what they make and not because I don't believe the members don't have access to those salaries, but because they refuse to also deal with the for-profit sector. For me, that kind of balance is important. I just cannot accept a one-sided approach to politics which is highly ideological and I would say mean. As if they haven't done enough to hurt unions already, they are continuing to create this negative picture of unions, that somehow their salaries are shrouded in secrecy.
When Mr Gilchrist gets an opportunity to pass this bill and it gets back into the House, he can proudly say, "We finally got to the unions. You're finally going to know what these union people make," but make no statement as to whether we should know what other folks are making out there in the for-profit sector. So I object to the fact that he's going to proudly go out into his community and say: "I'm finally going after the unions. You guys are going to know what these people make."
I'll be voting against this particular section for that reason.
The Chair: Any further comment? All those in favour of section 4, as amended?
Interjection: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Danford, Gilchrist, Maves, Ross, Stewart, Young.
Nays
Marchese, Sergio.
The Chair: Section 4, as amended, is carried.
Section 5. We have three New Democrat amendments, all of which are out of order.
Mr Marchese: Again? See, the balance is tipped in favour of the Conservatives, I tell you.
The Chair: Any discussion on section 5?
Mr Marchese: Let me read that, Mr Chair. Hold on, please. Oh, yes, I've got a problem there. On subsection 5(1) -- and the Tories have to help me out. They've got to speak to this. I can't do it alone.
In (2) it says: "A labour union or employees association shall promptly deliver to any person, other than the Minister of Finance, a copy of a statement of record that it is required to make available to the public under section 3 or 4 if the person requests a copy and pays the labour union or employees association the fee prescribed by the regulations...."
1720
Look at the language here. If you look at the language here, it says "shall promptly deliver." It doesn't say "shall deliver" but "shall promptly deliver." What does the word "promptly" tell you, Mr Chair? It tells you that somehow these bad union people, these labour people, when they make a request, now that they're going to be ordered by this if this thing ever goes through, are going to have to deliver it promptly. Because they cannot be trusted to deliver it, they have to deliver it promptly. "Promptly" -- I don't know what it means. I get the sense that somehow, if you deliver it, you've got to respond to it pretty darn quickly, and that may be the next moment, the next hour or the same day -- I'm not sure -- but it's promptly. I object to that because it gives the impression that somehow the unions don't want to do that, wouldn't want to do that, and that we've got to force them into submission. That's what it says.
I think the language leaves a very negative impression. I wonder if Mr Gilchrist would remove the word "promptly" from 5, and I urge him to speak to that. If not, I'll make an amendment to that effect.
Mr Gilchrist: The only reason the word "promptly" is in there is because -- and I'm sure Mr Marchese and his government, I think quite wisely, used similar language almost any time they had any direction for payment of fees or delivery of any documents.
Again I take direction from legal counsel when they helped me craft the wording in this bill. If you don't have a word like "promptly" in there, "shall deliver" could be construed to be two years from now, five years from now. There should be implicit in there the sense that this should be done on a timely basis.
It's certainly not meant to single out any one group. It's quite consistent. I think the member would find that his own government made many references in documentation, in laws such as this, to suggest that there should be a timeliness to the delivery of documents or the payment of fees.
Mr Marchese: I don't remember the word "promptly" in documentation that we might have dealt with in the past. I remember language such as "within a reasonable time frame," and all of that is always vague because you can't pin it down unless you actually pin it down to dates.
Mr Gilchrist: That's right.
Mr Marchese: I don't remember "promptly," but there is language of "reasonable time frame" or "reasonable time." That I could live with because it doesn't have the same negative connotation as "promptly."
Now, "reasonable time" probably legally could -- they probably define it in their own way. I'm not sure how they do that. I think that's much more acceptable language. I don't know whether the research officer has any sense of that. Legal counsel obviously would, but they're not here. I think language that includes the wording "reasonable time frame" is reasonable language. The word "promptly," in my view, is unreasonable.
Mr Gilchrist: I guess I would just --
The Chair: Mr Sergio was the next person to speak.
Mr Gilchrist: I'm sorry, Mario. I didn't realize that. I guess my sense is, not to sound contrary, that to that union employee, to the worker on the line who has made the request, "promptly" is probably a word that he or she is quite comfortable seeing in there because of the mere fact of them making the request. Obviously they want that information and they want it on a timely basis.
Considering that the report has already been drafted by that date and that the union would be paid no differently than anyone else for the fee that would represent the cost of photocopying and mailing that out if somebody didn't want to actually go down and pick it up, then they're not out of pocket and I would think that again -- and I have no reason to cast aspersions on any union. I believe that when one of their members makes a request to the parent union, they would want to react quickly to ensure that the member, who is paying monthly dues, gets that kind of value.
I must say I can't see why it makes a big difference -- promptly, reasonable. As I say, the word came from legal counsel and I don't think there was any malice aforethought. It was done simply to ensure that there was some sense of timeliness in responding to a union member and anyone making a request.
Mr Sergio: I guess I wasn't too explicit perhaps before when I was asking a question of Mr Marchese but should have addressed it to Mr Gilchrist on the other side to avoid the confusion, to make it clearer perhaps. Saying "shall promptly deliver to any person," that doesn't have to be an employee or whoever. Let's say you walk to the counter and say, "I want a copy of this or a copy of that." It may not be the appropriate time or it may be an inconvenient time for some employee of that union to provide that particular document. They may say, "Can you come back in two hours?" or, "Can you come back in three hours?"
I'm not trying to be picky or technical; I'm just trying to make sense out of the situation here. That's what I was trying to say before, to clarify the intent of the request and say within a particular time or notification of time, so that we don't give any excuse -- not that I particularly agree -- to the union to say, "Sorry, you've got to come back tomorrow," or, "I've got to get it ready," or, "I have to photocopy," or, "The person you want, who is going to do it, is not here."
Once you have submitted your request in writing within a particular time, they've got to provide you with that information. Promptly? Yes, that's what it means, that when I request it you have to supply me that information promptly. All right? "I didn't negate you getting that information; it was just inconvenient for me. You came at five to 12. The person who should be getting you that information isn't here. You've got to come back at 2 o'clock. That person is not here now." They're not doing that on purpose; it's just that they can't provide it to you at the time that you request it.
But if you have something in writing, within 24 hours or whatever, just to make it clear, so you don't leave any chance to create more confusion or problems for the person requesting it, I would feel more comfortable if I go in and request it from Local 185 or whoever, and don't have to make five trips over there. I know I have sent a letter -- I have a copy -- and that by such-and- such a date or day or time, I'm going to pick it up, it's going to be there. That's what I would like to see. Perhaps Mr Gilchrist wants to comment on that. If that is inappropriate, then it's fine. If we're going to be voted down, that's fine too. If you want to clarify it --
Mr Gilchrist: I would not want to tie the hands of the union with an artificial number of hours. I am sympathetic. The person may be on vacation; it may be a holiday week. I don't think there's anybody in this room or outside this room who would interpret "promptly" in the context that this is being untoward to turn around a request even within the same week or two weeks. But it certainly does not mean months and months, and that's all that I intended by "promptly."
Mr Sergio: I don't know if Mr Fenson is the one to answer this. What does "promptly" or "within a reasonable period of time" mean?
Mr Fenson: It used to be one had words like "promptly" -- and an even more urgent one was "forthwith" -- but it's become common in the last generation to have legislation which also talks about "the third business day after" or some specification in terms of week or month, so that's possible. But "promptly" is not the most urgent available word; "forthwith" is a stronger demand on speed.
1730
Mr Sergio: I don't use legal language here. I'm reading from this, where it says, "A labour union, employees association or public sector for-profit employer shall promptly deliver to any person other than" --
The Chair: What are you reading from? We're not dealing with an amendment; we're dealing with section 5. There are no amendments to section 5.
Mr Sergio: I keep referring back and forth.
The Chair: We're strictly dealing with section 5; actually subsection 5(2).
Mr Sergio: Yes, that's what I was reading from, subsection 5(2).
The Chair: The amendment is out of order.
Mr Sergio: Okay. I didn't hear that.
Mr Marchese: Let me tell you the problem I have. The researcher, Mr Fenson, used a few other words to talk about other possibilities. "Forthwith" would be even more evil, I would argue. "The third business day" or whatever, all of that is fine, but there is no urgency to this. It's not as if it's a matter of life and death, where you have to go get your birth certificate or your driver's licence, something you need that is urgent, something you require, otherwise it's a problem. There's no urgency to this particular matter whatsoever.
I'll add this: There has never been a complaint that we're aware of where a union member requested information about salary disclosure and didn't get it. I'm not sure whether there was a request -- I don't know -- and, if there was a request, whether there was ever a problem in getting that information. That's never been an issue. The way it's presented, it makes it appear like it is an issue.
This particular wording isn't here for union members; this is for the public. I find that even more objectionable. He wants to get to that taxpayer of his in his riding and say: "Look what I've done for you. I'm now going to make sure that if you ask the union to give you that salary disclosure, you're going to get it promptly." That's what he's getting at, because "any person" doesn't say "any union person." "Any person" says "any person of the general public," right? That's who he's speaking to. He wants to satisfy the general public person who wants to come and make that request. You're going to get it promptly.
I don't see what the urgency of that is, nor do I see that there has ever been a problem that has been identified in relation to this particular matter. That's why I find the word objectionable. Mr Gilchrist doesn't find it objectionable, but I find it objectionable. He doesn't see why it's a problem. I see it as a problem. I see "promptly" as a negative word because it suggests that it's been a problem before. If he's not willing to entertain that, I'm going to move that the word "promptly" be deleted from that section.
The Chair: You're putting forward an amendment?
Mr Marchese: I had better put an amendment, because he doesn't appear to be willing to either delete or change it.
I move that "promptly" be deleted from subsection 5(2).
The Chair: I guess we've discussed the issue enough.
Mr Marchese: I want a recorded vote.
Ayes
Marchese, Sergio.
Nays
Danford, Gilchrist, Maves, Ross, Stewart, Young.
The Chair: Mr Marchese's motion is lost.
Mr Marchese: I have another amendment proposal. I'd like to propose that "promptly" be replaced by the words "within a reasonable time."
Mr Stewart: Would Mr Marchese explain to me the definition of "reasonable," please.
Mr Marchese: I've heard it said on many an occasion in various committees that "reasonable" has some legal resonance or understanding.
Mr Stewart: I didn't ask that.
Mr Gilchrist: What's your interpretation?
Mr Marchese: "Reasonable time" is flexible time. It could mean one day, it could mean two days, it could mean a week, it could even be two weeks or longer.
Mr Gilchrist: So it's sort of like "promptly," which is undefined, as I read into the record already, flexible in consideration of the circumstances.
Mr Marchese: I beg your pardon, no, Mr Gilchrist. You're absolutely wrong. "Promptly" doesn't include any flexibility whatsoever. You may have said for the record, for yourself, that "promptly" includes the possibility that somebody might be sick. This doesn't allow for that. "Promptly" doesn't say, "Oh, by the way, if you're sick it's okay." "Promptly" says, "Right now."
Mr Gilchrist: How does "reasonable time" --
Mr Marchese: "Reasonable time," as you know, is a very flexible term that allows for some problem to happen so that you could not deliver it promptly, for the following reasons. Then you could give reasons as to why you might not have been able to deliver it promptly. But "promptly" doesn't take into account the fact that you might have been sick, that a whole department might have had a fire over there and can't deliver it to you, or that there was a problem.
Mr Gilchrist: Mr Chair, if Mr Marchese is indicating that this is his only qualification and will allow us to proceed on the vote for the rest of the section --
The Chair: Mr Stewart, are you satisfied with the answer you got?
Mr Stewart: No, I'm not, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, if you're finished with the answer --
Mr Marchese: Does he have a problem with what I said? I want to hear him. Why isn't he happy? Why is he unhappy with what I said?
Mr Stewart: I asked for his interpretation of "reasonable." "Reasonable" could mean one year as well, or two years or five years.
Mr Marchese: I find that unreasonable.
Mr Stewart: If you want me to support your amendment, you should be able to give me an interpretation of what "reasonable" means.
Mr Marchese: I did. I didn't say one year; you did.
Mr Stewart: No, in your mind you did.
The Chair: With all due respect, there's no place to include that in the wording.
Mr Stewart: I was trying to promptly get the amendment off this, and we could get out of here and get this thing promptly passed.
Mr Marchese: Do you see what I mean?
Mr Gilchrist: If I could speak to Mr Marchese, if he would be prepared to further refine it to say "shall within 10 business days," I would be prepared to support that amendment.
The Chair: Okay. First of all, we have an amendment on the floor by Mr Marchese that we delete the word "promptly" and substitute the words "in a reasonable time." I think we've discussed it enough.
All in favour of that particular change?
Mr Marchese: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Marchese, Sergio.
Nays
Danford, Gilchrist, Maves, Ross, Stewart, Young.
The Chair: That amendment is defeated.
Shall section 5 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 5 is carried.
Section 6. Mr Marchese has three amendments to section 6, which again, unfortunately, Mr Marchese, are all out of order for the reasons given before.
Mr Marchese: I can't believe it.
The Chair: Is there any comment on section 6? Mr Marchese.
Interjection: Do it promptly.
Mr Marchese: I will do it promptly.
Subsection 6(1) reads as follows, for the record:
"6(1) A person who is a member of a labour union or employees association and who feels that the labour union or employees association has not made available to the public a statement or record as required by section 3, 4 or 5 or that a statement or record that it has made available to the public under this act contains false or incomplete information may file a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board."
I was reading what Mr Ross McClellan was saying for the record. He said, "`Where a member of a trade union complains that an audited financial statement is inadequate, the board' -- that is, the Ontario Labour Relations Board -- `may inquire into the complaint and the board may order the trade union to prepare another audited financial statement in a form and containing the particulars that the board considers appropriate.'"
It's already contained in their constitution, as I read earlier on. Isn't this section redundant, Mr Gilchrist?
1740
Mr Gilchrist: No. It needs to be referred to in this bill in order to tie it back. You're absolutely right, the union members currently have a right under the union constitution in some cases. In Mr McClellan's union's case, I accept that; not in all unions' cases. That was also part of the evidence we had heard.
Clearly, it should be the right of all union members to be able to have some independent arbiter -- not you, not me, not a politician, but the Ontario Labour Relations Board -- be able to rule on whether the information was fairly disclosed. This does nothing more in this bill, because it has to. Again, as a novice at this, legal counsel, when I did my first draft, said that you had to have some reference to the enforcement or there's no point having a statute. You can't proscribe something without saying who the person is who will be doing the oversight. So it was the suggestion to simply refer back to the same act that you've been referring to in the submission by Mr McClellan. We're singing from the same song sheet, only this makes sure every union member in the province has that right of appeal.
Mr Marchese: So let me ask -- I don't know if Mr Fenson knows -- do people not have access to the Ontario Labour Relations Board now on any complaint that they might have with respect to this?
Mr Fenson: I'd have to look at that statute to see if it automatically applies to all unions, the terms under which the accounts of the union are to be made available to the members. I just can't answer; I don't have the statute in front of me, but I can find that out.
The Chair: Any further discussion on section 6? Shall section 6 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 6 is carried.
Section 7: Mr Marchese has three amendments to section 7. Again, they are out of order. Any discussion on section 7? Mr Marchese?
Mr Marchese: No, Mr Chair. I just needed to look at it. Sorry.
Mr Gilchrist: If I can help Mr Marchese refresh his memory, this simply says -- and I'd be the first to agree with his earlier submission -- there may be no union that gets a direct grant, the same way that, say, the ROM does. This only says in this section that if there is a grant that was due and there's been a failure to file the legally required notice, the grant would be held up until the filing was received.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, does that --
Mr Marchese: Yes. On section 7 the same argument applies to all of this, that I would have loved to have seen this government do the right thing and that is include the for-profit sector as well, as we were trying to do with all of our amendments. I think it's wrong to do that. I'll be opposing it.
The Chair: Any further discussion on section 7? Shall section 7 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 7 is carried.
Section 8: Mr Marchese again has three amendments which are out of order. Any discussion on section 8? Seeing none, shall section 8 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 8 is carried.
Mr Marchese: Sorry -- you were on section 7 --
Mr Sergio: Section 7 is done.
Mr Marchese: I want to speak to section 8.
The Chair: Section 8 is done now, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: No, no. I'm sorry. I want to speak to section 8.
The Chair: I'm sorry. You voted against it. I called the motion on section 8. I said, "Seeing no comment on section 8...all those in favour...all those opposed?" So section 8 is carried.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, just allow me the courtesy to speak to one of these issues.
The Chair: Section 8 has been carried, Mr Marchese. I allowed it once before for you. I gave you even more time this time. You did not address any comments to it, so section 8 is carried.
Mr Marchese: If you do that, then I'll slow the whole process down by reading every section so I will not miss anything.
Mr Young: You should have read it before you came here.
Mr Marchese: I appreciate that Mr Young has read the whole thing and he understands it, but some of us would prefer to have that time to reflect on these things as we go along. So if you do that, I'm going to read every section so I won't miss a thing.
The Chair: Do we have all-party consent to go back to section 8?
Mr Gilchrist: I was prepared to indicate that if Mr Marchese is going to be allowing us to finish the last couple of minor sections before the close, I would have no problem giving unanimous consent to allowing him to make a brief comment on section 8 into the record.
The Chair: Mr Marchese?
Mr Marchese: No.
The Chair: So we do not have unanimous consent to reopen section 8?
Mr Marchese: He wants me to finish this whole thing before the time is up is what I think I heard him say.
The Chair: That's what he said.
Mr Marchese: No.
Mr Sergio: Not in exactly the same words, but that's what he meant, yes.
The Chair: So I do not see unanimous consent to reopen section 8.
Section 9: Any comments on section 9?
Mr Marchese: "The provisions of this act prevail over any other act, any regulation made under any other act or any agreement unless another act specifically mentions those provisions and provides otherwise."
Again, I object to what's here. It's an overriding type of clause on an issue that I don't believe should have that kind of attention, and when this language as is written here says that it shall prevail over any other act, to me, that's a problem. I don't believe it's of that kind of importance to me or to the general public that this particular provision should be here, and I don't know what it overrides. It may override many other acts, very likely, but I don't support this clause.
Mr Sergio: It seems to me that this is a clause that supersedes any other act, "may prevail over any other act." Is this a superseding clause? Can you perhaps, your staff or Mr Gilchrist, give us any idea of any other act this one here supersedes?
Mr Gilchrist: Again, Mr Sergio, in sitting down with legal counsel, I was told that this is pretty much a standard clause that you would put in a bill like this. The only other acts that might apply would be acts such as the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act if it was ever amended to include labour unions as well, for example, and because it's dated later, I'm told it would transcend this one. But in all the research that was done, legal counsel advised me that there is no conflict caused by this one right here, but it's the sort of boilerplate that lawyers put in to --
Mr Sergio: I'll accept that, but the fact is that this is something very important we are doing here, and I'm surprised that we can't have the legal counsel here to answer some of our questions. It will go through, I have no doubts about that, but I will have some doubts in my mind that I cannot be satisfied from a legal point of view, if you will, from the very same people who have written this clause here. The way I read it, this particular section 9 has the power to supersede other acts. I'm asking the question, what other acts? In what other cases? Give me some examples. I would like to have that explanation for my own satisfaction from our own legal people here.
I won't doubt what Mr Gilchrist is saying, that the legal staff says it doesn't mean very much. To me, the way I read it, it means an awful lot, because this now supersedes many other acts.
Mr Gilchrist: No. Again, the other act would have to be silent on an issue, as you see in the second half of this clause, "unless another act specifically mentions those provisions." For example, if we were talking about --
Mr Sergio: That's my point. What other acts?
Mr Gilchrist: But I'm saying any act that specifically mentions a provision would not be superseded, so it's only an act that's silent. For example, there is no bill that requires labour unions to disclose salaries, so you would agree with me that therefore this is a new provision that would not affect another bill. If, at some point in the future, another statute included a similar reference, they would have to make reference in their bill to this one to determine who ranks first.
1750
Mr Sergio: I will accept that, but my difficulty here is that when we say "any other act or any agreement unless another act specifically mentions those provisions," I would have difficulties myself to find another act that very specifically -- I don't want to hold this up, Mr Chairman, but I would find difficulties to find another act that specifically has those provisions where it says, "Section 9 does not supersede this particular act over here, because there is a very specific particular provision in here." I myself would have difficulties, but if the solicitor would be here and say yes and would give us some examples for the benefit of the members here -- it is that portion that leaves me a little bit unclear. I don't know if I make any --
Interjections.
Mr Sergio: I wouldn't get hung up on that.
The Chair: Any further comment on section 9? Shall section 9 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, I would hope that at other times when we are dealing with important documents like this one here we would have on hand our staff to answer some questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sergio.
Section 10: Mr Gilchrist has an amendment to number 10.
Mr Gilchrist: I move that clause 10(1)(a) of the bill be struck out. That is amendment 35A in your compendium.
Very briefly, we were listening when the deputations were made and, forgive me, I can't off the top of my head remember which one of the union spokespersons who came before us had some difficulty with that, and in reflecting it probably is not appropriate to discriminate between different unions or employees' associations, and it probably is not appropriate to allow that discretionary power under the regulations. So the motion will be withdrawing clause 10(1)(a).
The Chair: Any questions, Mr Marchese, on that?
Mr Marchese: No, in fact, that would have been one of my questions on that particular issue: "exempting a labour union or employees association from a provision of this act." I wanted to know what that meant, and he's explained, and I agree with him.
The Chair: All in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The amendment carries.
Further amendments: Mr Marchese has one, two, up to number 41. Mr Marchese, those amendments are out of order for the same reason as given before. Mr Marchese, do you have some comments on section 10?
Mr Marchese: Yes. I want some clarification from Mr Gilchrist on section 10 on a lot of areas. "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make any regulations the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable to carry out the intent and purpose of this act, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing...." Two problems: one, "may make any regulations," and two, it includes what is here but is not limited to what is here. What is that? What could it possibly include? Because the language worries me.
Mr Gilchrist: I have a very simple answer, Mr Marchese. When you look through the different sections, and I certainly don't wish to sit here and sound like any kind of expert in bill drafting, because I'm the furthest thing from it, that's a standard preamble in bills that says nothing more than the Lieutenant Governor in Council will have the ability to ensure that the words we are voting on today are successfully translated into workable, clear, concise and effective regulations. As you go down the list, for example, (b), that is really nothing more than ensuring that they meet generally accepted accounting principles. We've all heard that phrase around here. The regulation probably would be as concise as just that.
As you go down through the different headings, you'll also find that this is in every respect identical to Bill 26. Mr Marchese, I can give you an absolute assurance that in no respect did I ask labour unions or employees associations to be treated to a different standard than what was asked for in the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act. I give you that absolute undertaking. The words you see here are completely consistent with what we're asking people at the Royal Ontario Museum and the Ontario Science Centre and hospitals and universities and the whole compendium I showed you earlier today in clause-by-clause. This applies exactly the same standards. In fact, the words under this section of regulation are taken right from how those other groups are treated. I can give you the absolute assurance that nothing has been done that would single out or in any way put a different standard to labour unions or to employee associations.
Mr Marchese: So the language, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, only refers to the various items that are listed here from (a) to (i), or does it possibly include other things?
Mr Gilchrist: The only time it includes something else, and forgive my inability to craft an answer in a legal phrase -- let's say, for the sake of argument, I had left out clause (b) in the list, which I think we would accept is a reasonable thing. Of course the unions will want to know what format to send a report in, and you're going to tell them generally accepted accounting principles where you'll have a balance sheet and an income statement. If I had left it out, that would be an important thing where someone looking at the actual regulations would have to say, "Holy mackerel, Gilchrist left this out and we've got to put in something even though it's not listed there." But if your question is, can they go beyond the scope of the issues we've talked about here today, no; the regulations cannot expand the other sections and requirements we've asked of the unions. In no respect can they be extended beyond that.
Mr Marchese: Indeed. It says, "(b) prescribing standards that a labour union or employees association shall observe in preparing the audited statements on its financial affairs mentioned in subsection 3(1)." It may not be as onerous as anything else we do. What (b) speaks to, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that labour unions might have different standards for the way they prepare audited statements and this says they will prescribe a standard they would like the union to prepare it in.
Mr Gilchrist: On that matter, for example, no. There is in Ontario only one standard for an audited statement. That's it. Any accountant, any auditor will tell you they've got a huge 600-page handbook that tells them how they do their job. I anticipate that the regulation would say nothing more than, "The unions or employees associations shall prepare the audited statements in conformity with the Ontario standard of audits."
Mr Marchese: Would you need (b) then? I thought if it was a standard thing that they all practise, why do you need this?
Mr Gilchrist: You need that. Legal counsel told me at some point you're going to have to go to groups and say: "Here's the quick and dirty little checklist. Your statement must be in generally accepted accounting principles. It must be done according to the audit standard that's acceptable to the group of auditors in Ontario." All those things are set out already in the bylaws of the auditors, for example, in this case.
Mr Marchese: What does clause (d) mean? It says, "providing that an amount other than $100,000 applies for the purposes of section 1, subsections 4(1) and (3) clause (c) of this subsection."
Mr Gilchrist: If at some point in the future this committee or others were to hear a bill that amends this one the regulation would have to be amended as well. I can give you my personal assurance that I will not come forward with an amendment to change it from $100,000. That says nothing more than if the other section earlier in the act is to change, the regulations obviously would have to change as well. You can't have the regulations asking for $100,000 if the bill gets changed to $200,000.
Mr Marchese: I see. Okay. "Providing that specified payments that a labour union or employees association makes to or in respect of an employee be included in or excluded from the definition of `salary' or `benefit' for the purpose of this act and prescribing" them -- what does that mean?
Mr Gilchrist: Again, if the federal government were to say tomorrow that your car allowance is no longer a deemed benefit, the regulation would have within it the ability to conform to the federal Income Tax Act. If the federal government doesn't call it a benefit, we won't call it a benefit.
1800
Mr Marchese: I see. And (f)?
Mr Gilchrist: If I were to give you a bonus plan but merely indicated that you've earned a bonus of $5,000 and didn't pay it to you, I don't think it would be fair to deem that the employee earned the $5,000. This says we would have the ability to say -- it's totally consistent with the federal Income Tax Act -- only the money you actually got would be judged for the purpose of the $100,000 threshold.
Mr Marchese: You were advised that you should include this language, in other words.
Mr Gilchrist: Yes, by our legal counsel. I would be misleading you if I suggested that they didn't supply 99% of the words in that section.
Mr Marchese: I understand; and (g) "prescribing methods in addition to or in place of those mentioned in this act"?
Mr Gilchrist: For example, we just changed the Employment Standards Act. One of the provisions in it said that all payroll records had to be in writing. Just as you and I are treated, all our payroll records are electronic. Technically speaking, it would have been illegal for you and me to get paid electronically. It should be done by cheque. This just says if at some point in the future there's a new technology and every one of us walks around with an e-mail access somehow glued to us, we'd have the ability to say that's an acceptable way to send out the information.
Mr Marchese: This is the same thing, "by a particular method."
Mr Gilchrist: Yes.
Mr Marchese: I was just turning the page and it says, "to disclose information by a particular method." I think you've answered that.
In (h) "prescribing the fee that may be charged under subsection 5(2) for furnishing a copy of a record or statement."
Mr Gilchrist: Unions would be allowed to set a reasonable fee for a photocopy, and if you asked them to mail it, they'd be allowed to add a mailing charge as well.
Mr Marchese: So (h) simply provides for the union to recover some of these costs?
Mr Gilchrist: Absolutely. They can have full cost recovery.
Mr Marchese: In (i), "defining `fund'...and `promptly'."
Mr Gilchrist: Remember we spoke earlier that if there was a grant of some kind being given to a union, "grant" and "funding" would be defined. I believe that's already done under the Interpretation Act.
Mr Marchese: And the word "promptly"?
Mr Gilchrist: We would have to come up with a reasonable time period specified in there.
Mr Marchese: So you're going to have to define this at some point. Is that what (i) means?
Mr Gilchrist: They would have the ability to define that. I think representations made, including the ones you've made here today, would in large measure shape that conclusion.
Mr Marchese: So (i) permits for "promptly" to be defined at some point.
Mr Gilchrist: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Did they tell you what that would look like, perhaps?
Mr Gilchrist: No.
Mr Marchese: You didn't necessarily ask.
Mr Gilchrist: I don't mean to be facetious at all. When I saw that word, it meant to me something consistent with a reasonable time period. I would be quite prepared to give you a personal undertaking that if at the conclusion of all this we can work together in the drafting of that regulation, I would be prepared to make that overture.
The Chair: Any further discussion on section 10?
Mr Marchese: Is "scope" part of that? I'm sorry, that's 10(2), right?
Mr Gilchrist: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Could you speak to that again?
Mr Gilchrist: Very briefly. I'm told that is a standard boilerplate. Because there are different types of unions and associations there may be requirements, just off the top of my head, in terms of how they disseminate information to their members. We may all agree that the larger unions would have an easier time, perhaps, embracing electronic transmission of information, but it would be unfair to ask a smaller union local to invest in that same technology. I think it merely says there would be the ability to be flexible, and maybe even the timing, that a small union local might have extra consideration in terms of what "reasonable" or "promptly" is in getting something out. I hope you would agree with us that the flexibility would be a positive thing.
Mr Marchese: Do you not think all this is a great big deal for something that -- I'm not sure. I think it is a big deal because disclosure is a big deal, but maybe I'll speak to the title because that's where I'll make my other point and get you to speak to it afterwards. I have nothing else on that matter.
The Chair: Any more comments on section 10? Shall section 10, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 10, as amended, is carried.
Shall section 11 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 11 carries.
Shall section 12 carry? All those in favour?
Mr Marchese: I have a comment, sir. This is where I want to make my general comments with respect to --
The Chair: Okay. First of all, I should tell you that your amendment is out of order.
Mr Marchese: What page was that?
The Chair: Page 42.
Mr Marchese: Why is it out of order?
The Chair: For the same reason as the previous ones.
Mr Marchese: Right, and that's why I want to speak to that. This government could have redeemed itself if they had done what we proposed they do.
Mr Sergio: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are we adjourning at six o'clock, or what's the story here?
The Chair: That clock is fast. I don't believe the bells have gone on, have they?
Mr Sergio: No, there's a late show.
The Chair: It is past six o'clock. We need all-party approval to continue past six o'clock. Do we have unanimous consent? No? The committee is adjourned until next Thursday.
The committee adjourned at 1807.