CONTENTS
Tuesday 30 September 1997
Public Sector Transition Stability Act, 1997, Bill 136, Mrs Witmer /
Loi de 1997 visant à assurer la stabilité au cours de la transition
dans le secteur public, projet de loi 136, Mme Witmer
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Présidente
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North / -Nord L)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph PC)
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland PC)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent L)
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr John Hill, legal services branch, Ministry of Labour
Clerk Pro Tem / Greffier par intérim
Mr Douglas Arnott
Staff / Personnel
Mr Mark Spakowski, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1529 in committee room 1.
PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSITION STABILITY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À ASSURER LA STABILITÉ AU COURS DE LA TRANSITION DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC
Consideration of Bill 136, An Act to provide for the expeditious resolution of disputes during collective bargaining in certain sectors and to facilitate collective bargaining following restructuring in the public sector and to make certain amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act / Projet de loi 136, Loi prévoyant le règlement rapide des différends lors des négociations collectives dans certains secteurs, facilitant les négociations collectives à la suite de la restructuration dans le secteur public et apportant certaines modifications à la Loi sur les normes d'emploi et à la Loi sur l'équité salariale.
The Chair (Mrs Brenda Elliott): Good afternoon. I call the meeting to order for the purpose of considering Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, 1997. We meet again this afternoon for clause-by-clause consideration.
Before we resume, I want to remind all members that, by order of the House dated Wednesday, September 17, 1997, at 5 o'clock today those amendments which have not yet been moved are deemed to have been moved. The Chair is then required to interrupt the proceedings, regardless of where we are with the amendments. At that time, there shall be no further amendment or debate and the Chair will, "put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put," and taken into consideration. The Chair may allow only one 20-minute waiting period, if requested, pursuant to standing order 127(a).
When last we left off, I was to bring back to you a ruling on the government amendment found on page 14. I listened very carefully to all the arguments that were placed before me and the members of the committee yesterday as to whether this amendment is out of order, as to whether it's outside the scope of the bill and if it seeks to open unrelated areas.
After careful consideration, I find that this motion is not unreasonable or unusual. It does not directly seek to open up or amend sections of other acts. In fact, the effect of this motion is not to amend the definition section but to replace it.
Beauchesne refers to a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause of a bill. Bill 136 does not contain an interpretation clause. This amendment contains no prohibitions or objections and refers to purposes already stated. More importantly, it has long been the accepted practice in the Ontario Legislative Assembly to accept proposed amendments to definition sections. Therefore, I rule this amendment is within the scope of the bill and is in order.
I would just remind members that the decision of the Chair is not debatable, but I would invite further discussion on this amendment before I put it to a vote.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to express my extreme disappointment. By all accounts, most of us felt this was a very valid point of order, and it's very disappointing to see that there's not an edge in here anywhere for opposition; there doesn't seem to be a role for opposition. We had hoped that you, playing the traditional role of being impartial, would have given a little more weight to the arguments that we made, given that we think they were clearly substantiated by both Beauchesne as well as the tradition of this House.
I think anyone who takes a look at the amendment and what it amends will recognize that what they're seeking to do by this amendment is clearly a move through the back door, and that they are seeking to amend without really amending anything. It's very disappointing, Chair, and I can only say to you that, given the fact that we've got less than an hour and a half left -- and I'm not going to bother appealing it. The government's got the majority votes. They're not going to support any kind of an appeal, and we have to get a majority vote to appeal it to the Speaker, which is unfortunate, because I'd be prepared to bet, with odds, that we could get a different ruling elsewhere.
However, I want to point out that at this stage of the game we've got some 202 total amendments. We've done 14 so far. There's no way we're going to get through them all today and that means that, like Bill 99, this government is going to just ram these things through with no opportunity even for opposition input. Mr Sewell was here yesterday wanting to know when the public could speak. He was shut out of it, as is every other member of the public on what virtually is a brand-new Bill 136. Now, by virtue of the ruling you've made and the time allocation motion, we're pushed to the sidelines too.
There's no role for the opposition here; there's no role for the public here. The only role that matters is whatever the government wants. With rulings like yours, Chair, I say with respect, it just makes it that much easier for them to steamroll right through. Why we bothered having these sham hearings, I'll never know, other than the politics of it were such that we had to be here as much as we could to defend the rights of those who are being attacked here.
We spent, what, two hours last night talking about pay equity alone. Although the government is making a lot of noise about taking away two out of the three, the one aspect of the pay equity legislation that's being left in 136 opens the door, where legally it wasn't possible, to women receiving less wages than they get now -- and we're talking about the lowest-paid workers in our province. We had a chance to talk about the employee wage protection plan, where the government is gutting and eliminating that protection for workers who are facing bankruptcies and closures, and there are still other aspects of this bill that, whatever the minister tries to spin, are not good news and don't make things better. They're just the lesser of all the evils. We're not even going to get a chance to comment on those, Chair.
We're not going to get a chance, once we hit 5 o'clock, to have one word. I know for a fact that the government backbenchers will be voting on amendments that they have not read and thought through, because there hasn't been the time. We haven't been able to do it. There hasn't been the time to consult with the legal experts and the labour experts who could advise us of what the concerns ought to be -- because we're not the experts; they are. All that has been shut down by this government ramrodding this thing through and completely ignoring the democratic rights of the citizens and now ignoring the democratic rights of other elected MPPs.
It's a shameful, disgusting, arrogant display of anti-democratic procedures the likes of which have never been seen before in this province. Although I may have comment from time to time as we go through the last hour and a half, almost, of this charade, I have no intention of participating in any more voting, because this is all just a joke.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I appreciate being in the sunlight, but Madam Chair, I'm really disappointed with this. I know it's not debatable, but you did say discussion. It's quite obvious to me that the section is first of all withdrawn, struck. You had a little paragraph which had five lines replaced by a page and a third or a page and a fifth, over a page, of additional references related to arbitration.
The first definition had to do with collective agreements; this one talks about arbitration. It lists six different sections. It then gives direction as to what arbitration must do and take into consideration, which means to say it shouldn't be in the definitions at all; it should be in a couple of other sections.
I have a hard time swallowing this particular decision. Likewise, I will not ask for an appeal, although I feel there should be one -- as a matter of fact, I think I will ask for an appeal to the decision, because I just find this one so obvious and so flagrant, related to the points we made yesterday and the references we made, that this section would come under "Definition" when it starts off with "Arbitrations." The other one starts off with "Collective agreement." Those are two separate issues, even.
The purpose has changed; the substance has changed. It has substantially changed, and I would ask for an appeal on this. I share my colleague's view of, how could we ever justify saying that we have a democratic process when 150 pages are dumped on the committee, knowing full well that we'll never get through a quarter of them? I've received some phone calls to my office by some lawyers from other parties who are affected by this particular legislation, and there are problems with some pieces of it.
Even if we make some friendly amendments to some of the amendments the government has, to enhance or correct what's been drafted, you're going to end up with another bill coming back in any case, which has happened in the case of every major bill. The high risk of not taking the time leads to poor legislation, where you have to take extra time afterwards to introduce another bill to make an amendment to the original bill because you rammed it through and then it was found to have flaws in it. I submit the same thing will happen with this bill as well.
Madam Chair, it's with regret and with no personal intent on this, but on the basis of the principles I just referred to, I would ask the committee to challenge the decision.
1540
The Chair: You've heard Mr Patten's request, so I shall immediately put the question.
Shall the decision of the Chair be appealed to the Speaker? All those in favour? All those opposed? It is lost.
Any further questions or comments on this particular section?
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Reluctant as I am to lower myself to the level of what we've just witnessed here in the last few minutes, I think it has to be stated it is arrogance in the extreme.
We keep hearing the litany from the opposition members that somehow anything that happens in this building is undemocratic. Might I remind them that every one of them, as every one of us, is here precisely because of a very democratic election. You are charged with the task of representing the people in your riding. You are charged with the task of weighing all the various issues and you should be going back and canvassing the people in your riding and bringing their views forward.
At the same time you're protesting about the inability of the system to accommodate public input, you keep filibustering, and your filibusters have obviously denied everybody, including other members, the opportunity to actually speak to the amendments before us. It's no different in every bill and it's no different in the House. You wonder why people might have the impression? They should know it's because the two opposition House leaders have absolutely refused to play ball.
We get very technical bills, such as the City of Toronto Act, version 2, that do absolutely nothing to change any of the issues that were raised under Bill 103, but of course we have to take the full time in the House and we have to take the full time in committee, rather than devote more time and resources to other bills -- substantive bills, policy bills.
We would debate things like that ad nauseam just because the process allows that to take place. It is precisely because of that lack of accommodation, it is precisely because of that lack of cooperation in the Legislature and in committees that you see the results; namely, that we have no choice but to come up with time allocation motions because, as the NDP demonstrated far more times than we have, if there was no cooperation in any circumstance then, there's even less of it today.
As we sit here, I'm absolutely flabbergasted every time Mr Christopherson gets on his high horse and suggests that he somehow is the only person listening to people in this province, that he has a monopoly on compassion, a monopoly on intelligence, a monopoly on common sense. It's really unbecoming, Mr Christopherson. It wears a little thin after a while.
The fact of the matter is, all of us have constituency days. All of us meet with groups in our ridings. All of us, I believe, take the time to deliberate over the various choices that face us in here. When we do listen, the first phrase you throw out is, "You capitulated; you retreated," yet if we hadn't responded to changes, you'd have said we're ramming it through. It's kind of hard to come down on both sides of the issue, but you manage to do that almost every bill, Mr Christopherson, and it really is tiresome.
The fact of the matter is, on Bill 136, aside from one visit from some firefighters, I haven't had a single letter, a single phone call or a single visit from any of the 98,000 people who live in my riding. Given the amount of press, I would ask you, is it your submission that the people in Scarborough East don't know what they're doing? Is it your submission that, located as I am in the busiest mall, the busiest plaza in the riding, the people in Scarborough East are too dense to find my riding office, or they wouldn't show the initiative if they really believed all the fearmongering that comes from your lips and those of your colleagues? Or could it be that even the union officials in our riding who would be affected --
Mr Patten: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I believe we were discussing the issue that you focused on, and I don't see any discussion on it. We're talking about the process here and we're talking about a particular section that's before us.
Mr Gilchrist: I would -- I'll let you rule, Chair, of course.
The Chair: I remind all colleagues that we are speaking to the bill. We are speaking to the amendment on page 14 ,and I remind all colleagues to direct their comments through the Chair.
Mr Gilchrist: Precisely. Thank you.
To the same extent that neither of the two opposition members made any reference to the section before us, my comments are no more and no less applicable. The fact of the matter is, you get on your soapbox and you think you're the only one entitled to do that. Let me remind you, you've got one third of the seats in the Legislature and the fact that the process is set up here that you get two thirds of the speaking time clearly proves that there is fairness.
There's a greater balance in favour of the opposition parties in here and in the House, and time and time again you would suggest to the people watching or anyone who reads Hansard that somehow you're constrained, that you don't have the same ability and you don't have the same powers and rights that we have to go out and meet people and hear what they have to say and have the same resources. I'd remind you that your research budget per capita is infinitely larger than the government members' and even more so for Mr Christopherson. In fact, it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of four times as great per member.
They've had this bill since June 3. Their amendments were tabled at the same time as the government ones -- not exactly one or two. To suggest that the volume of amendments somehow undermines the process is quite an insult to the people who take the time to comment. I'd remind the member that in the Tenant Protection Act that just went through here a couple of weeks ago, the government successfully made 100 amendments to that bill. I don't recall a hue and cry that we gutted the original bill. I'd remind him also that we accepted five Liberal amendments and one NDP amendment.
Clearly, we're not only prepared to listen to the people who have come before the committee and reflected them in amendments, we're even prepared to listen to you and to Mr Christopherson and your colleagues. That's the track record. There has never been a piece of substantive government legislation in two and a half years that hasn't seen government amendments to the bill.
I would argue that many times from sheer volume alone, the fact that we have been listening, the fact that we've held more hours of hearings than either of your government did between 1985 and 1990 or Mr Christopherson's did in 1990 to 1995, more hours of hearings for fewer bills -- the facts speak for themselves. The amendments are a reflection of the fact that we do listen to the people who come before the committees, we listen to those who write, who phone and who fax us. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than a political rant.
You've wasted the time of this committee now for a day and a half without any real content, and I think it's appropriate to put on the record that the government members are just as open and accessible. We believe, obviously contrary to you, that the day of the election was the ultimate expression of democracy in Ontario and for the next four years you and I are charged with the responsibility of carrying out the legislation, the legislative duties and the governance of this great province.
Mr Patten: Exactly.
Mr Gilchrist: To suggest that somehow there's to be a different standard applied just because you don't agree with some bill is utterly fraudulent.
Mr Patten: Just because you got elected, you think you can do whatever you want, however you want. Don't talk to me about arrogance.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr Gilchrist: You guys have a monopoly on that. Those are my comments, Madam Chair.
Mr Christopherson: Very briefly, because we've been around this a number of times. In terms of who has not been in to see Mr Gilchrist in his constituency office, perhaps they saw his performance on the megacity and watched him try to defend that undemocratic process and realized that, "At that level of arrogance, we're going to cast the word around: 'Why bother going to see him?'"
This is not a guy who's prepared to listen to anything other than what the cabinet members tell him, because he's so hell bent for leather that he's going to be a cabinet minister that he's prepared to roll into any committee that somebody from on high sends him into, to play the pit bull routine. The effect of that is that the public very much knows who you are, and of course in the House the word is out too. Your own caucus colleagues consider, among that bunch, that you're one of the most arrogant there.
I don't know who you think you're kidding by rolling into these committees every now and then and pretending like you're Mr Tough Guy who's going to take on the opposition and show them -- because that's exactly what you attempt to do, and it's so transparent. You may fool a few of the folks, but anybody who's been around here for a while or just listens to other government caucus members will know clearly what's afoot.
1550
Let's remember, this was a government where under Bill 26 we had to -- and I wasn't proud of the fact that we had to, but I was proud after the fact that we did it -- hijack the Legislature in order to get some semblance of decent public hearings on that huge bully bill, the omnibus Bill 26 that you tried to ram through, and even then that wasn't nearly enough. You didn't learn your lesson.
This is the same government that brought in Bill 49, where you took away rights from people who don't have the benefit of a union or collective agreement in the Employment Standards Act. What was it the minister said? "These are minor housekeeping amendments, just a little bit of nuts and bolts, a little bit of minor housekeeping," and when we called her for what it was, you caved again, because public pressure was such that you had to. We got four weeks of province-wide public hearings, and we whupped your ass in every one of those communities, because you couldn't defend the argument that it was nothing but housekeeping.
Let's go on. Then what happened with Bill 99? We had all kinds of commitments from the junior minister at the time and then from the Minister of Labour herself that there would be province-wide public hearings. When we got four weeks of province-wide public hearings on a bill that your government said was minor housekeeping, we assumed that we could take you at your word that on takeaways and a tax on injured workers in Bill 99 we would get at least that much and arguably more. What did we get? Six measly days across the province, and you did that in the dead of summer. What happened again? We whupped you in every one of those communities too. We had standing room only, crowds in there with banners and hats and buttons, we had media and marches, and that was just the tip of what we could have done, but because you're a bunch of cowards, you wouldn't go any further.
When we got to Bill 136, you rammed through your time allocation motion the other day, and then, for some bizarre reason, got up the next day and ran up the white flag. I'll still never understand the idiotic politics of that one. Then, because you were such cowards, you did this hokey teleconferencing at the last second, which was meant to honour the commitment of the minister to do more province-wide public hearings, and you broke that promise too. Not one person has had a chance to make a comment on these amendments that virtually gut the bill in a way that no other bill has been gutted before. We're at number 14. We've got 202. We've got an hour to go, and after that, the opposition gets shut down too.
I can tell the member for Scarborough East and any other member of the government caucus that if you think you are going to be able to defend this process around Bill 136 and suggest that this has some kind of fairness or democracy to it, you're kidding yourself, and the list grows.
I'll end my comments by pointing out that all of this around Bill 136 took place after the government changed the rules of the House and gave us the most stringent, airtight, ironclad, anti-democratic rules that exist anywhere in this country. When the government argues, "This particular clause is in this legislature," or "This clause is in the House of Commons," they like to cherry-pick. If you take the total control that this government has given itself by virtue of House rule changes and taking away legislative decision-making and putting it into the cabinet room through regulations, there has been a usurping of the power from the people to the élite in that party that is unmatched in the history of any Legislature, not just this one.
It's very difficult and very stressful, I might say, to listen to people like Mr Gilchrist and others -- and fortunately, there aren't too many others; there are enough other Tories who have brains enough not to make those kinds of silly arguments and put themselves forward because they have enough self-respect to realize that any objective analysis clearly shows, whether you agree with our arguments or not, at the end of the day you can't defend these processes and say that they have been democratic. You, it would seem, Mr Gilchrist, either march to a different drummer or do not have the political sophistication to realize that's the smart way to go. But you live by your rules and we'll live by our rules, and I'm quite prepared to see what happens at the end of the next election.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I don't want to belabour this any further, but I do find it a little odd. Mr Christopherson is well known for making speeches and going on at some length about democracy and procedures, and I think it's a little unfair of him to all of a sudden get so agitated when someone else wants to speak to that same issue in an opposition view from his. However, I'm not going to go into that in great detail. I want to reiterate, though, that this government, and we have said this before, has had more public hearings, more hours and more time on public hearings on fewer bills than either of the two previous governments, and that's perfectly clear.
I also want to say, with regard to the number of amendments, while there are several pages in this package, out of the next 20, I believe one is an amendment; the rest are one or two of the parties recommending voting against a section. They are not really even motions. They are out of order. They are just recommendations. I think that bears mentioning.
Lastly, in fairness again to Mr Gilchrist, I have never heard a member of my own caucus issue any disparaging remarks against Mr Gilchrist in the manner in which Mr Christopherson has implied. I thought that was unfair and actually unparliamentary of him, and I wondered if he wanted to withdraw those remarks. Those are all the comments I have.
The Chair: I'm going to interject at this moment to say I would ask all members of the committee to speak to the amendment at hand. I remind them to consider their parliamentary language and to address their comments through the Chair. With that caution, we then move to Mr Gilchrist.
Mr Gilchrist: Precisely in that vein, it's quite remarkable, as we look at the sections before us right now, that the original wording under "Collective agreements" was a six-line clause, the last line of which was "and such other agreements as may be prescribed," quite open-ended. It is proposed to be replaced with something in extraordinary detail, something that would make it very obvious to anyone, and you wouldn't need a legal background to see that instead of something as open-ended as "such other agreements," it goes into extraordinary detail to list precisely the terms and conditions that would apply. I think this is the spirit and the direction that the overwhelming majority of the government amendments have taken.
Again, it is somewhat ironic, given that their party of choice is so virulently opposed to these amendments, that Mr Ryan and others seem to find favour with these amendments. They have called off their threatened illegal strike. They have certainly suggested that the process had worked. If they want to use terms such as, "The government retreated," or "They backed down," or whatever, that's fine, but at the end of the day, again, it's fairly irreconcilable to suggest on the one hand, as Mr Christopherson did, that we are ramming everything through without listening, and yet, on the other hand, to have Sid Ryan and others suggesting that we retreated and, to use Mr Christopherson's words, that we are cowards.
It really is something so extraordinary, that you go through a process, you deal with the stakeholders who claim, as I commented, that they represent certain constituencies when they sit here before us -- Mr Ryan and Ms Darcy and others -- and they tell us that they speak, in the case of one, for 180,000 and, in the case of another, for 440,000 workers in this province. The NDP have always suggested that somehow the union leaders, these bosses, whose salaries and perks are unknown to their own members, whose pay would not suffer if an illegal strike was to take place -- they don't go out on strike; they don't lose anything, but they ask others to -- that those people, when they come before us, somehow don't speak. Again you have two completely contradictory points of view coming out of the same mouths on the other side.
I'd like to believe Mr Ryan and I'd like to take him at his word when he said that the process did work. I would also like to take him at his word back on August 18, on CFRB, when he said that if the government was serious about the accommodations the unions had requested, he would guarantee -- he used the word "guarantee" -- labour peace.
They have followed through with that. At least as it stands right now, the threats have been taken off the table. I hope this bodes well for future negotiations, that in the future when bills are introduced on June 3, they won't wait till the day after Labour Day and the chance to have a soapbox and to exploit certain criticisms of this bill and instead in a far more timely fashion will sit down when the offer is made by the ministers, as it was back in early July. We could have resolved all of these things literally months ago. That would have pre-empted an awful lot of the ill-founded concerns that were fomented by certain parties across this province and by certain opposition members.
1600
The fact of the matter is, the minister made it very clear back in early July that she was prepared to sit down, she was prepared to deal face to face, she was prepared to listen to the comments and the suggestions and the criticisms of the union leaders, and we've done that. I think the section before us is proof positive.
I'm not going to belabour the details in section 2, but I must say that as we look at this section and the overwhelming majority of the amendments to follow, what we have done is to reflect completely, in most cases, the wishes of the stakeholders while still sticking to our goals of ensuring that there is a process in place for an orderly transition during municipal restructurings, hospital restructurings and school board restructurings.
I believe that by adding further definition, as we have in this section, section 2 that's before us, it will be far easier for the various unions and their locals to understand their rights and responsibilities. It will be easier for arbitrators to undertake their tasks, should it go that far. I think it is genuinely an improvement to the bill.
I anticipate that the opposition members will not support this, but it really defies understanding why, even if they disagree with the intent of the whole bill, when you go through clause-by-clause and you make significant improvements, they still dogmatically follow their path of objecting to everything the government does instead of a more appropriate path, to criticize where appropriate but agree, similarly, where that is the proper course and where it reflects the views of their own constituency and the people they claim support them, namely, the union leaders.
Mr Christopherson: Just very briefly to correct the record so that we keep facts up front rather than myths, the fact is that I'm not aware of a single union constitution that doesn't provide for the explicit expression of what the top leadership of a given union makes, and it's there for every member to see. In fact, it's the members who vote on it at convention. I would suggest that the Tory government, as run by Mike Harris, should be half as democratic as the labour movement in this province.
I would also point out that in the case of the OPSEU strike, which was forced and foisted upon the OPSEU members by this government's Bill 7, Leah Casselman, the president of that union, did not take any pay for exactly the same length of time as every one of her members. If you want to start attacking the unions and trying to make them evil, at least have the decency in this place to use the truth.
The Chair: Other questions and comments on this amendment? Seeing none then, I put the question. For the government amendment on page 14, shall this amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Any further discussion on schedule A, section 2? Shall schedule A, section 2, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Schedule A, section 3: Any comments or questions or discussion on that section? Seeing none then, shall schedule A, section 3, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Schedule A, section 4: Any comments or questions? Seeing none, shall this section carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Schedule A, section 5: Any comments or discussion? Seeing none, I ask the question, shall schedule A, section 5, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Schedule A, section 6: Any comments or questions? Seeing none, shall this section carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Schedule A, section 7: We have an NDP amendment on page 24.
Mr Christopherson: I move that subsection 7(1) of the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, 1997, as set out in schedule A of the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, 1997, be amended by striking out paragraph 3.
Paragraph 3 of course is the power to send the end of negotiations to final offer selection or to a mediation arbitration over the objections of the parties. We heard from presenters on this part of the original Bill 136. I believe we heard from both sides, particularly around the final offer selection, both employers and employee representatives, but certainly every employee representative made it very clear that contrary to the government's belief that sending it off to final offer selection would be a disincentive, forcing people to negotiate, they saw very much -- and I see that Bruce Carpenter from the firefighters is here, and he was one of those who made the case -- that sending something in this fashion -- I believe it was Bruce who was one of the ones who made that argument -- was going to do much more harm than good. The Hansards on that are there.
This is one of those residual parts of the bill that continues to give union representatives difficulties. I grant you, in the broader context of things, there's obviously not going to be a general strike over this one particular clause, but the government and the public ought not to be under any illusion that just because there isn't a general strike everything that's left in Bill 136 is warmly embraced by the labour movement, because it's not.
This in particular is one of those clauses that, should the government ram it through today and should they use the power that they're authorizing here, is going to cost down the road in terms of labour relations. There's going to be a price to be paid, and the price is going to be less efficient and less successful labour negotiations and more labour disputes and possibly disruptions as a result of this heavy-handed approach to resolving differences between the parties. Our caucus is tabling a motion that would remove this from the bill.
Mr Maves: This amendment would amend section 7, allowing the chief commissioner of the Dispute Resolution Commission to make an order specifying the method to be used to resolve a dispute. We've just voted and we're going to continue to vote as we had said we were going to quite some time ago, against establishing the DRC and the chief commissioner and, therefore, a chief commissioner of a DRC's authority to make such an order. I want that to be clear, that the government is going to vote against this section in its entirety.
However, I just think I'll put on the record that the rationale behind having final offer selection as a choice of procedure will appear in the amended bill. The rationale for that which we put forward is simply that in order to encourage parties to collectively bargain, it was felt that having the option of final offer selection as a possibility would be a deterrent to both parties just turning over a dispute to a Dispute Resolution Commission or to an arbitrator and would in fact encourage collective bargaining.
I know Mr Hudak spoke to this at length with some different hospital unions and perhaps even the OHA. The HRPAO, the Human Resources Professional Association of Ontario, spoke positively about this. So we do have final offer selection remaining in the bill as a choice of procedure for an arbitrator.
1610
I do want to say, however, that we have made it a little difficult to get there in the sense that later on in the amendments to the bill we are requiring mediation to occur first. That speaks to the desire that disputes be settled by the parties themselves in the collective agreement process, and if need be with the help of a mediator, before they would get to a position like this. I just wanted to make those arguments before we voted.
Mr Christopherson: I have a final comment, just to point out that the government members in the past have said, "Well, you haven't put your amendments in, so why should we put our amendments in?" Of course, the fact of the matter is that the government drives these things. To point out just how ridiculous this process is and how much credence there is to our argument that you've gutted the whole bill, anybody who had the bill in front of them and had lines like I do of all the sections that are being eliminated because you've gutted the bill -- it just goes on for pages; watch them all vote against their own amendments -- it puts me and my colleagues from the Liberal Party in the ridiculous position of arguing in favour of amendments that modify Bill 136 when two amendments later the government plans to vote and eliminate the entire section.
Now, that does happen from time to time. Normally it's seen as good news and you go on from there. Our point all along has been that you've gutted the bill so much that there's no relationship any more between what you proposed to do in Bill 136 and what you'll end up having after we go through these amendments that nobody has had a chance to comment on.
So I want to suggest to you, Chair, that in order to not waste any more time than necessary, where there's a particular principle to be made, particularly where that principle still resides in the new Bill 136, I may comment, but by and large I'm not going to spend a great deal of energy arguing about certain clauses within sections when two amendments later it's the government's intent to wipe out their own original legislation.
Mr Maves: I'd just like to say that I understand the position Mr Christopherson is in, and I appreciate that while beforehand we said we were going to make the changes such as removing the DRC and most of the sections we're talking about now, establish or talk about how the DRC should conduct its proceedings and so on and so forth, we said we would remove them, I understand that he felt it was still incumbent upon him, in case we did not remove them, to have these amendments to make changes to that. I understand that difficulty, but I also felt it necessary just to speak about the government's rationale for having final offer arbitration selection. That's why I made those comments.
The Chair: Any further comments on this section of the bill?
Mr Maves: This amendment.
The Chair: Sorry, this amendment. I apologize. All right, seeing none, I put the question. Shall this amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
We now have another NDP amendment on page 25. Mr Christopherson.
Mr Christopherson: For the reasons I've already mentioned, Chair, I will just read it and then we can move to the vote, as far as I'm concerned.
I move that section 7 of the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, 1997, as set out in schedule A of the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, 1997, be amended by striking out subsection (2).
This of course refers again to forced final offer selection.
The Chair: Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall this amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Any further comments on schedule A, section 7? Shall schedule A, section 7, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Schedule A, section 8: Any comments on this schedule? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall schedule A, section 8, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Schedule A, section 9: Comments or questions? Seeing none, shall schedule A, section 9, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Schedule A, section 10: Questions or comments? Seeing none, shall schedule A, section 10, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Schedule A, section 11: Any comments or questions? I put the question. Shall schedule A, section 11, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It too is lost.
Schedule A, section 12: Questions or comments? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall schedule A, section 12, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Schedule A, section 13: Questions or comments? Shall schedule A, section 13, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Schedule A, section 14: Questions or comments? Seeing none, shall schedule A, section 14, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Mr Maves: Chair, could I just have one minute?
Mr Christopherson: What amendment are we on?
The Chair: We just finished section 14.
Mr Christopherson: What amendment number?
The Chair: It isn't an amendment.
Mr Maves: It's a recommendation.
The Chair: Oh, sorry, I haven't been following those recommendations. Just one moment. I'll refer to the page from now on, if that helps. We just dealt with page 41. We're now moving to page 42, referring to schedule A, section 15. Questions or comments? Seeing none, shall schedule A, section 15, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 44, schedule A, section 16: Any questions or comments? Shall schedule A, section 16, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It too is lost.
Schedule A, section 17, page 46: It's an NDP amendment. Mr Christopherson.
Mr Christopherson: I move that section 17 of the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, 1997, as set out in schedule A of the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, 1997, be amended by striking out subsection (1).
If I might comment, this speaks to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, and again, because we didn't get a chance to see all the amendments that created a brand-new Bill 136, we're precluded from making any amendments that we would like to make further regarding the whole area of fire prevention and the labour relations laws around firefighters, because after the government's amendments were tabled at 10 o'clock yesterday morning, we of course were faced with the same deadline, and we were prohibited from putting any amendments in after that. There's no ability, even by unanimous consent, under the air-tight time allocation, to change that. There's no way to offer up any amendments, so when it comes to any of these kinds of things that are changed, we in opposition have absolutely no opportunity to make any amendments and debate any alternatives, because we didn't know what they were going to be until after our amendments had to be in by deadline.
Of course, we don't even get benefit of the public. There's Bruce Carpenter, the president of the firefighters, sitting right here. Under your time allocation we can't ask him to come up and even give us five minutes' input on the changes that are made, whether they meet all his requirements or there are still some areas of concern. In fact, I know there are some areas of concern. He gets absolutely no opportunity. He's sitting nine or 10 feet away from that chair, and he gets no opportunity; and because of the process, we don't either. Then you tell me that you're listening.
1620
The Chair: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the NDP amendment found on page 46 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
We now have a government amendment found on page 47. Mr Maves.
Mr Maves: I move that sections 50, 50.1 and 50.2 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, as set out in subsection 17(1) of schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Arbitration
"50. Where the minister has informed the parties that the conciliation officer has been unable to effect a collective agreement, the matters remaining in dispute between the parties shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with this part.
"Appointment of single arbitrator
"50.1(1) Where the parties agree to have the matters in dispute between them decided by a single arbitrator, they shall, within the time set out in subsection 50.2(1), jointly appoint a person who agreed to act.
"Single arbitrator's powers
"(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) shall constitute the board of arbitration for the purposes of this part and he or she shall have the powers and duties of the chair of a board of arbitration.
"Notice to minister
"(3) As soon as the parties appoint a person to act as a single arbitrator, they shall notify the minister of the name and address of the person appointed.
"Appointment of board of arbitration
"50.2(1) Within seven days after the day upon which the minister has informed the parties that the conciliation officer has been unable to effect a collective agreement, each of the parties shall appoint to a board of arbitration a member who has agreed to act.
"Extension of time
"(2) The parties by a mutual agreement in writing may extend the period of seven days mentioned in subsection (1) for one further period of seven days.
"Failure to appoint member
"(3) Where a party fails to appoint a member of a board of arbitration within the period or periods mentioned in subsection (1), the minister, upon the written request of either of the parties, shall appoint such member.
"Third member
"(4) Within 10 days after the day on which the second of the members was appointed, the two members appointed by or on behalf of the parties shall appoint a third member who has agreed to act, and such third member shall be the chair.
"Failure to appoint third member
"(5) Where the two members appointed by or on behalf of the parties fail within 10 days after the appointment of the second of them to agree upon the third member, notice of such failure shall be given forthwith to the minister by the parties, the two members or either of them and the minister shall appoint as a third member a person who is, in the opinion of the minister, qualified to act.
"Notice of appointment by party
"(6) As soon as one of the parties appoints a member to a board of arbitration, that party shall notify the other party and the minister of the name and address of the member appointed.
"Notice of appointment by members
"(7) As soon as the two members appoint a third member, they shall notify the minister of the name and address of the third member appointed.
"Selection of method
"(8) If the chair of the board of arbitration was appointed by the minister, subject to subsections (9) to (11), the minister shall select the method of arbitration and shall advise the chair of the board of arbitration of the selection.
"Same, mediation-arbitration
"(9) The method selected shall be mediation-arbitration unless the minister is of the view that another method is more appropriate.
"Same, final offer selection
"(10) The method selected shall not be final offer selection without mediation.
"Same, mediation-final offer selection
"(11) The method selected shall not be mediation-final offer selection unless the minister in his or her sole discretion selects that method because he or she is of the view that it is the most appropriate method having regard to the nature of the dispute.
"Vacancies
"(12) If a person ceases to be a member of a board of arbitration by reason of resignation, death or otherwise before it has completed its work, the minister shall appoint a member in his or her place after consulting the party whose point of view was represented by such person.
"Replacement of member
"(13) If, in the opinion of the minister, a member of a board of arbitration has failed to enter on or to carry on his or her duties so as to enable it to render a decision within the time set out in subsection 50.5(5) or within the time extended under subsection 50.5(6), the minister may appoint a member in his or her place after consulting the party whose point of view was represented by such person.
"Replacement of chair
"(14) If the chair of a board of arbitration is unable to enter on or to carry on his or her duties so as to enable it to render a decision within the time set out in subsection 50.5(5) or within the time extended under subsection 50.5(6), the minister may appoint a person to act as chair in his or her place.
"Where single arbitrator unable to act
"(15) If the person appointed jointly by the parties as a single arbitrator dies before completing his or her work or is unable to enter on or to carry on his or her duties so as to enable him or her to render a decision within the time set out in subsection 50.5(5) or within the time extended under subsection 50.5(6), the minister may, upon notice or complaint to him or her by either of the parties and after consulting the parties, inform the parties in writing that the arbitrator is unable to enter on or to carry on his or her duties and the provisions of this section relating to the appointment of a board of arbitration shall thereupon apply with necessary modifications.
"Time and place of hearings
"(16) Subject to subsection (17), the chair of the board of arbitration shall fix the time and place of the first or any subsequent hearing and shall give notice thereof to the minister and the minister shall notify the parties and the members of the board of arbitration thereof.
"When hearings commence
"(17) The board of arbitration shall hold the first hearing within 30 days after the last (or only) member of the board is appointed.
"Exception
"(18) If the method of arbitration selected by the minister under subsection (8) is mediation-arbitration or mediation-final offer selection, the time limit set out in subsection (18) does not apply in respect of the first hearing but applies instead, with necessary modifications, in respect of the commencement of mediation.
"Failure of member to attend
"(19) Where a member of a board of arbitration appointed by a party or by the minister is unable to attend the first hearing at the time and place fixed by the chair, the party shall, upon the request in writing of the chair, appoint a new member in place of such member and where such appointment is not made within five days of the date of the request, the minister shall, upon the written request of the chair, appoint a new member in place of such member.
"Order to expedite proceedings
"(20) Where a board of arbitration has been established, the chair shall keep the minister advised of the progress of the arbitration and where the minister is advised that the board has failed to render a decision within the time set out in subsection 50.5(5) or within the time extended under subsection 50.5(6), the minister may, after consulting the parties and the board, issue whatever order he or she considers necessary in the circumstances to ensure that a decision will be rendered within a reasonable time.
"Procedure
"(21) Subject to the other provisions of this section, a board of arbitration shall determine its own procedure but shall give full opportunity to the parties to present their evidence and make their submissions.
"Same
"(22) If the members of a board of arbitration are unable to agree among themselves on matters of procedure or as to the admissibility of evidence, the decision of the chair governs.
"Time for submission of information
"(23) If the method of arbitration selected by the minister under subsection (8) is mediation-arbitration or mediation-final offer selection, the chair of the board of arbitration may, after consulting with the parties, set a date after which a party may not submit information to the board unless,
"(a) the information was not available prior to the date;
"(b) the chair permits the submission of the information; and
"(c) the other party is given an opportunity to make submissions concerning the information.
"Decision
"(24) The decision of a majority of the members of a board of arbitration is the decision of the board, but, if there is no majority, the decision of the chair is the decision of the board.
"Notice of agreement to recommence
"(25) If any member of the board of arbitration was appointed by the minister, the parties may, at any time before the arbitrator or board renders a decision, jointly serve written notice on the minister that they have agreed that the arbitration should be recommenced before a different board of arbitration.
"Termination of appointments
"(26) If notice is served on the minister under subsection (25), the appointments of all the members of the board of arbitration are terminated.
"Effective date of terminations
"(27) The terminations are effective on the day the minister is served with the notice.
"Obligation to appoint
"(28) Within seven days after the day the minister is served with the notice, the parties shall jointly appoint, under subsection 50.1(1), a person who agreed to act or shall each appoint, under subsection (1) of this section, a member who has agreed to act and section 50.1 and this section apply with respect to such appointments.
"Powers
"(29) The chair and the other members of a board of arbitration established under this act have, respectively, all the powers of a chair and the members of a board of arbitration under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
1630
"Appointment or proceedings of board not subject to review
"50.3. Where a person has been appointed as a single arbitrator or the three members have been appointed to a board of arbitration, it shall be presumed conclusively that the board has been established in accordance with this part and no application shall be made, taken or heard for judicial review or to question the establishment of the board or the appointment of the member, or members, or to review, prohibit or restrain any of its proceedings.
"Single arbitration of several disputes
"50.4(1) Where there are matters in dispute between parties to be decided by more than one arbitration in accordance with this part, the parties may agree in writing that the matters in dispute shall be decided by one board of arbitration.
"Parties
"(2) For the purposes of section 50.2, the bargaining agents for or on behalf of any firefighters to whom this part applies shall be one party and the employers of such firefighters shall be the other party.
"Powers of board
"(3) In an arbitration to which this section applies, the board may, in addition to the powers conferred upon a board of arbitration by this part,
"(a) make a decision on matters of common dispute between all of the parties; and
"(b) refer matters of particular dispute to the parties concerned for further bargaining.
"Same
"(4) Where matters of particular dispute are not resolved by further collective bargaining under clause (3)(b), the board shall decide the matters.
"Duty of board
"50.5 (1) The board of arbitration shall examine into and decide on matters that are in dispute and any other matters that appear to the board necessary to be decided in order to conclude a collective agreement between the parties.
"Criteria
"(2) In making a decision, the board of arbitration shall take into consideration all factors the board considers relevant, including the following criteria:
"1. The employer's ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation.
"2. The extent to which services may have to be reduced, in light of the decision, if current funding and taxation levels are not increased.
"3. The economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality.
"4. A comparison, as between the firefighters and other comparable employees in the public and private sectors, of the terms and conditions of employment and the nature of the work performed.
"5. The employer's ability to attract and retain qualified firefighters.
"Restriction
"(3) Nothing in subsection (2) affects the powers of the board of arbitration.
"Board to remain seized of matters
"(4) The board of arbitration shall remain seized of and may deal with all matters in dispute between the parties until a collective agreement is in effect between the parties.
"Time for decision
"(5) The board of arbitration shall give a decision within 90 days after the last, or only, member of the board is appointed.
"Extension
"(6) The parties may agree to extend the time described in subsection (5), either before or after the time has passed.
"Remuneration and expenses
"(7) The remuneration and expenses of the members of a board of arbitration shall be paid as follows:
"1. A party shall pay the remuneration and expenses of a member appointed by or on behalf of the party.
"2. Each party shall pay one-half of the chair's remuneration and expenses.
"Enforcement of arbitration decisions
"(8) Where a party or firefighter has failed to comply with any of the terms of the decision of an arbitration board, any party or firefighter affected by the decision may file in the Ontario Court (General Division) a copy of the decision, exclusive of the reasons therefor, whereupon the decision shall be entered in the same way as a judgement or order of that court and is enforceable as such.
"Non-application
"(9) The Arbitration Act, 1991, and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act do not apply with respect to an arbitration under this part.
"Where agreement reached
"50.6 (1) Where, during the bargaining under this part or during the proceedings before the board of arbitration, the parties agree on all the matters to be included in a collective agreement, they shall put them in writing and shall execute the document, and thereupon it constitutes a collective agreement.
"Failure to make agreement
"(2) If the parties fail to put the terms of all the matters agreed upon by them in writing or if having put the terms of their agreement in writing either of them fails to execute the document within seven days after it was executed by the other of them, they shall be deemed not to have made a collective agreement and the provisions of sections 49 to 50.5 apply, with necessary modifications.
"Decision of a board
"(3) Where, during the bargaining under this part or during the proceedings before the board of arbitration, the parties have agreed upon some matters to be included in the collective agreement and have notified the board in writing of the matters agreed upon, the decision of the board shall be confined to the matters not agreed upon by the parties and to such other matters that appear to the board necessary to be decided to conclude a collective agreement between the parties.
"Same
"(4) Where the parties have not notified the board of arbitration in writing that, during the bargaining under this part or during the proceedings before the board of arbitration, they have agreed upon some matters to be included in the collective agreement, the board shall decide all matters in dispute and such other matters that appear to the board necessary to be decided to conclude a collective agreement between the parties.
"Execution of agreement
"(5) Within five days of the date of the decision of the board of arbitration or such longer period as may be agreed upon in writing by the parties, the parties shall prepare and execute a document giving effect to the decision of the board and any agreement of the parties, and the document thereupon constitutes a collective agreement.
"Preparation of agreement by board
"(6) If the parties fail to prepare and execute a document in the form of a collective agreement giving effect to the decision of the board and any agreement of the parties within the period mentioned in subsection (5), the parties or either of them shall notify the chair of the board in writing forthwith, and the board shall prepare a document in the form of a collective agreement giving effect to the decision of the board and any agreement of the parties and submit the document to the parties for execution.
"Failure to execute agreement
"(7) If the parties or either of them fail to execute the document prepared by the board within a period of five days from the day of its submission by the board to them, the document shall come into effect as though it had been executed by the parties and the document thereupon constitutes a collective agreement.
"Delegation
"50.7 (1) The minister may delegate in writing to any person the minister's power to make an appointment, order or direction under this act.
"Proof of appointment
"(2) An appointment, an order or a direction made under this act that purports to be signed by or on behalf of the minister shall be received in evidence in any proceeding as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts stated in it without proof of the signature or the position of the person appearing to have signed it.
"Existing proceedings discontinued
"50.8(1) Proceedings before a board of arbitration under this part or a predecessor to this act in which a hearing was commenced before the date on which subsection 17(1) of the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, 1997, comes into force are terminated and any decision in such proceedings is void.
"Exception, completed proceedings
"(2) This section does not apply with respect to proceedings in which a hearing was commenced before June 3, 1997, if,
"(a) a final decision is issued on or before June 3, 1997; or
"(b) a final decision is issued after June 3, 1997 and the decision is served before the date on which subsection 17(1) of the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, 1997 comes into force.
"Exception, by agreement
"(3) This section does not apply if the parties agree in writing after the date on which subsection 17(1) of the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, 1997, comes into force to continue the proceedings."
This amendment puts forward and adopts from the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act the arbitration process that is followed right now in HLDAA and as it will be amended in a future amendment which adds into the existing HILDAA a choice of procedures and expedited time lines for the arbitration process.
1640
Mr Patten: That took almost 20 minutes to read. It's the longest amendment I've ever seen in my life. It's probably about the size of a small bill, which is quite something.
I have a couple of questions. Under "Selection of method," subsection (8), "If the chair of the board of arbitration was appointed by the minister, subject to subsections (9) to (11), the minister shall" -- it's on the second page of that amendment, 2 of 9. Could you give me some clarification on that? The following methods are identified. That means that the minister, or presumably his or her delegate, will make the decision on what method of arbitration would take place. Why is that?
Mr Maves: Rather than have the arbitrator, who is used to having hearings and is used to having one particular method of arbitration being done, the minister, in discussion with the Ministry of Labour mediation services and conciliation officers who would be aware of the dispute, would be better placed, upon their advice, to decide upon the appropriate selection of method for that procedure.
I will note that there are restrictions on the minister in subsections (9) to (11). For instance, and I discussed this briefly with Mr Christopherson at an earlier point, if the minister decides to choose final offer selection, we're saying that mediation has to precede that. I don't know if Mr Hill wants to help clarify that any further.
Mr John Hill: I'd be quite happy to clarify it if it needs to be clarified.
Mr Patten: It just seems to me that the cabinet appoints -- probably from the ministry anyway -- a political appointment by the minister. Then, if the chair is appointed to the board of arbitration, rather than trusting that individual, who theoretically would be closer to the activity, the minister retains the right to select the method that's used, which could presumably be at odds with the views of the arbitrator. How does that take place? How does the chair of the board and the minister -- I'm using "minister" in the symbolic term -- how does that take place? Do they talk about this? Do they explore the options, or how would it work?
Mr Maves: The minister, in discussions with an arbitrator or --
Mr Patten: Yes, with the chair of the board of arbitration.
Mr Maves: Mr Hill might be able to better describe the exact process there.
Mr Hill: The discussion wouldn't be with the arbitrator. This would be something that would occur before arbitration takes place. What would happen in practice is there would be notification to the ministry. It would go to the labour management services branch of the ministry. They would get information about the dispute, what sort of bargaining and negotiations have been taking place, and give advice to the minister on what they felt would be the most appropriate method in the circumstances, and then the minister would make a decision on the basis of that and inform the chair.
Mr Patten: So the chair gets walking orders, time frames and what method is to be used. I might say too that in some discussions with some of the firefighters, they are saying this is a pretty heavy and long section and they haven't been provided with much time to consult with their own legal counsel. But it appears to me that there are still a lot of powers retained by the minister if other things don't click in.
The criteria seem to be the same -- the consideration for ability to pay and the extent to which services are affected, all those kinds of things, which I think are unnecessary because it seems to me arbitrators consider all the factors that are at work in any case. To impose certain criteria may give undue weighting to the variety of factors that they select outside of this particular list, potentially compromising the arbitrator's independence and neutrality.
Under "Proof of appointment," this may be a moot point, but you said "absence of evidence to the contrary." This is under "proof of the signature or the position":
"An appointment, an order or a direction made under this act that purports to be signed by or on behalf of the minister shall be received in evidence in any proceeding as proof, in the absence of evidence...."
When you say "any proceeding," is this under a court proceeding or is this under an arbitration board proceeding? What's the context?
Mr Maves: A court proceeding, I believe, but Mr Hill can take that.
Mr Hill: It could be either. It could be that a party to an arbitration might wish to challenge an appointment on the basis that they are saying the purported arbitrator was not in fact appointed by the minister. I suppose it could also arise in a judicial review proceeding of an arbitration decision where somebody may want to argue that the decision rendered by the arbitrator or arbitration board wasn't valid because they weren't properly appointed by the minister.
Mr Patten: What was considered before was that final offer was a separate methodology, and you have created a new combination of mediation and final offer. In other words, the final offer can't be used unless there is mediation or a demonstration that that has happened. But if that has happened, let's say some mediation has already happened, that tool causes a problem, doesn't it, when you say, "We've already had some mediation; now we're going to look at mediation-final offer"? What does that mean?
Mr Maves: The direction there, and I think we discussed this during the hearings, is that in some cases there may be many issues in dispute that could be resolved by mediation. It was thought that mediation would take some issues off the table, and if there were just some remaining issues in dispute, it could be decided that they would be decided by final offer selection. That's why we had mediation in tandem with final offer selection.
Mr Patten: Oh, I see. Okay.
Mr Christopherson: Further to my Liberal colleague's comments, I would also point out that the portion of Bill 136 that's the actual bill, before you get to schedules A and B, runs a little over five pages and just slips into the sixth page. This amendment alone runs almost nine full pages. To paint the full absurdity of what's happening here, I had to walk over to Mr Carpenter and ask him, as I am sure Mr Patten had to do, what some of his questions are, so that I could then walk the few feet back to my chair here at the table to ask these questions, because there is no opportunity for Mr Carpenter to actually come forward and ask questions and make submissions about a brand-new process for them that's completely different from what the minister was so proud of up until last Thursday. That's how ridiculous this process is.
Anyway, if I understand his questions -- because given the time frames here, I only had a couple of minutes with him. So I'm going to look at him, and if I'm not asking the question correctly or if there is a supplementary question that needs to be asked, I'm going to take the two minutes that it takes to walk over and ask him, up until 5 o'clock when everything runs out, including my right to ask questions, and that's in about nine minutes from now. It's almost like trying to get permission to have an audience in front of the King, for God's sake. At 5 o'clock, even the opposition members turn into pumpkins.
1650
As I understand it, one of the concerns is that Bill 84, which was the betrayal of the promise made to the firefighters by Mike Harris personally before the election that they'd have all kinds of input and opportunity to comment before bills were introduced, which didn't happen, which is not yet proclaimed -- this is my understanding, and I ask both Mr Maves and Mr Carpenter to correct me if I'm wrong. But since it's not proclaimed, Mr Carpenter's concern on behalf of the members of his association is, if it's proclaimed first but before a process is completed in terms of a conciliation -- this bill is proclaimed -- does that mean that case may have to be done twice, once through Bill 84, as far as it gets, and then again through Bill 136 upon its proclamation?
Mr Hill: Perhaps I could answer that. We're certainly aware of the potential problem that might be created if the proclamations are not coordinated. We're working with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to ensure that's smooth. They'll be proclaimed in a way that won't cause problems, that won't have part IX of the FPPA come into force before this does.
Mr Christopherson: What happens if the process is halfway, though? Does that mean it would just automatically fall under Bill 136 or does it have to start over?
Mr Hill: If you're talking about a proceeding that has already started under the Fire Departments Act, the amendments here will deal with that. If proceedings started before this act comes into force, they are terminated, subject to certain specific exceptions.
Mr Christopherson: Now I'll play interpreter and ask Mr Carpenter if there's anything else he'd like me to ask in follow-up. Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you very much. It sure would have made a lot more sense if Mr Carpenter had been given his democratic right to come and ask the question himself on behalf of his members. That's the end of my comments on this particular chapter of this absurdity.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments on this amendment? Seeing none, I put the vote. Shall the government amendment beginning on page 47 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Our next amendment is a Liberal amendment, page 48, Mr Patten.
Mr Patten: Is it now not redundant? Check with the clerk.
The Chair: The advice is that it's not necessarily redundant. You may choose to move it or withdraw it. It's your choice.
Mr Patten: I move that section 17 of schedule A to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"17(1) Section 50 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 is amended by adding the following subsections:
"Method of arbitration
"(2.1) The arbitrator or the chair of the arbitration board shall determine the method to be used to resolve the dispute, including mediation-arbitration or mediation-final offer selection, subject to subsection (2.2).
"Limitation
"(2.2) If the method provides for final offer selection it must also provide for mediation and it must provide that final offer selection shall not be used until all reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute through mediation have failed.
"(2) Subsections 50(7) and (8) of the act are repealed."
The Chair: Did you want to comment?
Mr Patten: I think I made my arguments before on that. This allows that essentially final offer is the last resort and that mediation is continued. I don't think we're that far off, frankly, the part that deals with this in the previous section. We also believe it's important to unfetter the arbitrators with the imposition of the criteria from Bill 26. We think it does that, and we think it's important to maintain the arbitration process for the firefighters and that they make the selection related to which way they'd like to proceed.
Mr Maves: I appreciate the amendment coming from Mr Patten. I would just point out that we have the spirit of his limitation with regard to final offer selection in the amendment we just passed, and we did discuss that briefly. In his, he talks about "all reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute through mediation have failed." Ours goes a little bit further, but I think it speaks to the spirit of what his amendment was, that the method selected shall not be final offer selection without mediation. I just wanted to make that point.
The Chair: Further questions and comments? Seeing none, I'll put the question. Shall the Liberal motion to section 17 found on page 48 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
We now have a government amendment on page 49.
Mr Maves: I move that clause 57(b) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, as set out in subsection 17(3) of schedule A to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(b) governing the selection of arbitrators under section 53."
I'll ask Mr Hill to speak to that quickly because I don't have my note with me.
Mr Hill: What is the number of the page?
The Chair: It's page 49, to subsection 17(3).
Mr Maves: If I recall this, before Mr Hill can correct me, this is with regard to the minister making regulations with regard to prescribing the procedures to be followed and reasonable time limits. Mr Hill?
Mr Hill: Sorry about that. I got lost in my text here. The original clause (b) talked about selecting arbitrators under section 50 of the FPPA. That is now redundant as a result of the other amendments that have been made to the FPPA. So the provision you see substituted in the government motion simply deals with selection of arbitrators under section 53, which deals with grievance arbitration as opposed to interest arbitration.
The Chair: Further questions and comments? Seeing none, I put the question. Shall the government amendment that we find of page 49 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Colleagues, it being 5 o'clock, according to the standing orders we now move into a different procedure.
Mr Christopherson: On a point of order, Madam Chair: We just finished which amendment number?
The Chair: Page 49.
Mr Christopherson: We finished page 49, and we still have up to 202.
The Chair: We have 202 pages before us, but as Mr Maves pointed out earlier, a great number of those are not amendments; they're points of information to members.
Mr Christopherson: At least two thirds of them are amendments, though; government amendments.
The Chair: Whatever.
Mr Christopherson: My point is, before you go into this, since we're about to be shut down in terms of having any voice or say, I just want to put on the record that these amendments have never had any kind of public comment, they've had no public input. They were tabled just yesterday, and now we're being muzzled from having comment too.
The Chair: Mr Christopherson, it's not a point of order, I'm sorry. We're going to begin.
I shall endeavour to read these out as clearly as I can, and I will refer to the page numbers for your information as we go through them.
We've just finished doing amendments to section 17. Shall schedule A, section 17, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
1700
Schedule A, section 18, page 50, an NDP amendment. Shall this amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It is lost.
Page 51 is a government amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 52 is a Liberal amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost.
Page 53 is a government amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 54 is a government amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 55, also a government amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 56 is an NDP motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost.
Mr Maves: Chair, I would like to withdraw the next government amendment on page 57.
The Chair: All right. The amendment on page 57 is withdrawn.
Moving then to page 58, an NDP amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It too is lost.
Page 59 is a government amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 60 is a government amendment. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall schedule A, section 18, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Schedule A, section 19. Shall schedule A, section 19 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Would it be easier if I read -- I didn't read the pages. I'm sorry. Let's go back and we'll look at that again. I should read the pages out. I apologize for that. It is confusing.
All right, we were on page 60. That was a government amendment that we had passed; then we went to page 61. This refers to schedule A, section 19. I'll put the question. Referring to page 61, all those in favour of this section? Opposed? It is lost.
Referring to page 61, that's redundant. Page 63. This is a Liberal amendment. All those in favour? Those opposed? It's lost.
Going to page 64. This is a government amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 65. This is a government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 66 is an NDP amendment. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 67 is a government motion.
Mr Maves: Chair, you might want to note that there are four pages to this.
The Chair: Yes. There are four pages on this one, with one number. All those in favour of this amendment? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 68. This is a government amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 69 is a government amendment. It's also two pages. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
We are referring back to the entire schedule. Shall schedule A, section 20, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Schedule A, section 20, carries.
Going on to schedule A, section 21. This would be referring to page 70, which is a Liberal amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost. It also was two pages.
Moving to page 71, this is a government amendment. All those in favour? Opposed? It is carried.
Page 72 is set aside for now and we move to page 73. This is a government amendment. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 74, also a government amendment. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 75, a government amendment. This also is five pages. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 76 is a government amendment. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 77, government amendment. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Referring back to the entire schedule, shall schedule A, section 21, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Those opposed? Schedule A, section 21, as amended, carries.
Schedule A, section 21.1. This is new and it refers -- sorry. We go back to page 72 that we had set aside a little bit ago. This is a Liberal amendment. All those in favour? Opposed? This is lost.
Shall schedule A, section 21.1, carry? All those in favour? Sorry, I don't need to ask that question.
We move to schedule A, section 22. There are no pages referring to this particular one. Shall schedule A, section 22, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Schedule A, section 23. Again, there are no pages referring to this one. Shall this section carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall schedule A, in its entirety, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Schedule A, as amended, carries.
Moving now to schedule B, referring to the Liberal motion on page 78, all those in favour of this amendment? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 79 is an NDP motion. All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 80 is a Liberal motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? Lost.
Shall section 1 of schedule B carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
We now have on page 81 a government amendment. Shall this amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
We move to page 82. This is a government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
1710
Page 83, a government amendment. All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 84, also a government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 85, a government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 86, also a government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Shall schedule B, section 2, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 87 is a government amendment to schedule B, section 3. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall schedule B, section 3, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 88 is a government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Shall schedule B, section 4, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
There's no paper for section 5. Shall schedule B, section 5, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 89 is a government motion to schedule B, section 6. All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Shall schedule B, section 6, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Page 90 is a Liberal motion. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 91 is a government amendment. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 92 is a government motion, also to schedule B, section 7. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall schedule B, section 7, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
There is no paper reflecting section 8 of schedule B. Shall section 8 of schedule B carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
On page 93, a Liberal motion. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
On page 94, we have a government motion, also to section 9. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 95, also a government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 96, also a government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 97 is a government motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 98 is a government motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 99 is a government motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Shall schedule B, section 9, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Schedule B, section 9, as amended, carries.
The next page, numbered 100, is for information only.
Shall schedule B, section 10, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Schedule B, section 11, again no page of information on this one. All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Page 101 is a government amendment to section 12, schedule B. All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Page 102 is also a government amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Page 103 is a government amendment to section 12, schedule B. All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Shall section 12 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Page 104 is for information only.
Page 105 is a Liberal amendment to schedule B, section 13. All those in favour of this amendment? Opposed? Lost.
Shall schedule B, section 13, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Page 106 is a government amendment to schedule B, section 14. All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Page 107 is an NDP motion to section 14. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost.
Page 108 is a Liberal motion to section 14. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost.
Mr Patten: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Just in case you're wondering why we're not participating in this charade, sitting here listening to a staff person advise on each vote before the vote is taken as to how the government should vote, so the PA then puts up his hand and the rest of them follow suit, if you think that I feel good as a member sitting here --
The Chair: That's not a point of order.
Mr Patten: -- just going through the motions --
Interjections.
The Chair: That's not a point of order.
Mr Patten: I just wanted to describe the proceedings.
The Chair: All right.
Mr Maves: Actually, Chair, on the same point of order, or on a different point of order: I very much know how to vote on my own, but in this process it's best to be careful and have others help you make sure there are no slipups. As you noticed in your own procedures, it can be difficult at times to follow exactly where you are so it's not at all what's said in Mr Patten's comments.
The Chair: I remind everyone that according to the standing orders, we are to go through this without debate so we will endeavour to keep our wits --
Mr Patten: It was a point of order.
The Chair: I recognize it was a point of order, but we must endeavour to keep our wits about us here.
We just voted on the Liberal motion on page 108. That was lost.
Shall section 14 of schedule B carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
1720
Section 15 of schedule B on page 109 is a government amendment. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 110 is a government motion to schedule B, section 15. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 111 is also a government motion to section 15. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall schedule B, section 15, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Section 16 is not reflected on paper. Shall section 16 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 16 carries.
On page 112 we have a government amendment to schedule B, section 17. All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Page 113 is an NDP motion to the same section. All those in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Shall section 17 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 114 is an NDP motion to schedule B, section 18. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 115 is a government motion on schedule B, section 18. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 116 reflects a Liberal amendment for schedule B, section 18. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Shall section 18 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 117 is a government amendment to schedule B, section 19. All those in favour?
Mr Maves: Chair, it's actually not an amendment.
The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr Maves: It's a point of information to the government to vote against section 19.
The Chair: I stand corrected. It is a point of information and there is in fact no amendment to section 19 then. Shall section 19 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? That section is lost.
Mr Maves: Chair, the same could be said for the next. It's a point of information to vote against section 20. It's not an amendment.
The Chair: So then we're reflecting information that's on page 118. This is schedule B, section 20. All those in favour? Opposed? Section 20 of schedule B is lost.
Page 119 is for information also. This is for section 21 of schedule B. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost.
Page 121 is also information only.
Mr Maves: No.
The Chair: Oh, wait a minute.
Mr Maves: Page 120 was.
The Chair: I'm sorry. You're right, 120. That's what I had in my hand. I read it wrong. Sorry.
We're now on page 121. This is a government motion to schedule B, section 22. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
That was two pages. Page 122 is a government motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Page 123 is a government motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? It carries.
Page 124 is a government amendment to schedule B, section 22. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Mr Patten: Was that section 22?
The Chair: Yes, reflected on page 124, an amendment.
Mr Patten: I thought it was subsection 22(5).
The Chair: It says that, but we're going by the whole section, I believe. We've been doing that all along.
Shall section 22 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Reflected on page 125 is a government motion to schedule B, section 23. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 126 reflects a government motion on section 23, schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 127, a government motion on section 23, schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall section 23, as amended, of schedule B carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 128 is a Liberal amendment to sections 24 and 25 of schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? That motion is lost.
The next page is also a Liberal amendment to section 24 of schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
The next page is 130. This is a government amendment to section 24, schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 131 is a Liberal amendment of section 24, schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Page 132 reflects a Liberal amendment to section 24, schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Page 133 is a government amendment for section 24, schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall section 24 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? That's carried.
Page 134 is a Liberal amendment to section 25 of schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Page 135 reflects a government amendment to schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 136, a government amendment to schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 137 is a Liberal amendment to schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 138 is a government motion, schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 139 is a Liberal motion for schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 140 is a government motion, schedule B, section25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 141 is a government motion, also to schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 142 is a government motion for schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 143, a government motion, schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 144 is a government motion, schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 145 is a government motion, schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 146 is a government amendment to section 25, schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 147 is a government motion to schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 148 is a government motion to schedule B, section 25. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall section 25 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 149 is a Liberal amendment to schedule B, section 26. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
1730
Mr Maves: Chair, the next one on page 150 is a point of information, to vote against section 26.
The Chair: Yes, information only on page 150. Shall schedule B, section 26, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost.
Page 151 is a government motion to schedule B, section 27. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 152 is a government motion to schedule B, section 27. All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 153 is a government amendment to schedule B, section 27. All those in favour? Opposed? It also carries. It's several pages.
Shall schedule B, section 27, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
There's no information or amendments for the next section, section 28 of schedule B. Shall this section carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 28 carries.
On page 154 there's a government amendment to section 29. All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 155 is a Liberal amendment to schedule B, section 29. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Shall schedule B, section 29, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 156 is a Liberal amendment to schedule B, section 30. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 157 is a government amendment to the same section 30 of schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 158 is a government amendment to the same section, schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall section 30 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.
Page 159 reflects a government amendment to schedule B, section 31. All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Shall section 31 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Page 160 is a government amendment for section 32 of schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Shall section 32 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Mr Maves: Chair, may I just have one moment to arrange some papers?
The Chair: Sure.
Mr Maves: Thank you very much.
Chair, we're now on number 161?
The Chair: Right. I'll just wait for the clerk to return as well.
We are working from page 161. This is a Liberal amendment to schedule B, sections 33 and 34. All those in favour of this amendment? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 162 is an NDP amendment to schedule B, section 33. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Mr Maves: Chair, again this is a note to vote against section 33. It's not an amendment.
The Chair: Information only. Then we return to schedule B, section 33. All those in favour of this section? All those opposed? That section is lost.
Page 164 is an NDP amendment. This is to schedule B, section 34. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 165 is also an NDP motion to section 34, schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 166 is an NDP motion also to section 34, schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Page 167 is an NDP motion to schedule B, section 34. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 168 is for information only. Shall section 34 of schedule B carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost.
Page 169 reflects a Liberal amendment to schedule B, sections 35 to 38. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost.
Page 170 is a government amendment. This is for schedule B, section 35. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 171 is a government amendment. This is also to schedule B, section 35. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
1740
Shall section 35 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 172 is a government amendment to schedule B, section 36. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 173 is also a government amendment to schedule B, section 36. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Page 174 is a government amendment to schedule B, section 36. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall section 36 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
The government amendment on page 175 is to schedule B, section 37. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Page 176 is a government amendment to section 37 of schedule B. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 177 is a government amendment to section 37 of schedule B. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 178 is a government amendment to schedule B, section 37. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Shall schedule B, section 37, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 179 reflects a government amendment to schedule B, section 38. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 180 is an NDP motion to schedule B, section 38. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 181 is a government amendment to schedule B, section 38. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 182 is an NDP motion to schedule B, section 38. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 183 is a government motion to schedule B, section 38. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 184 is a government motion to schedule B, section 38. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Page 185 is a government motion to schedule B, section 38. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Shall section 38 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 186 is a point of information only.
Page 187 is a government amendment, two pages. This is to schedule B, section 39. All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall section 39 of schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 188 is an NDP motion to schedule B, now section 40. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 189 is for information only.
Shall section 40 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? That section is lost.
On page 190, we have an NDP motion to schedule B, section 41. All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 191 is for information only.
Shall section 41 of schedule B carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? That section is lost.
Shall section 42 of schedule B carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? That section's lost.
Shall section 43 of schedule B carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost.
Page 193 is information also, of course.
Page 194 is an amendment. This is an NDP amendment. This is to schedule B, section 44. All those in favour? Opposed? Lost.
Page 195 is for information only.
Shall section 44 of schedule B carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost.
Page 196 is a government amendment. This is to schedule B, section 45. All those in favour? Opposed? That amendment's carried.
Schedule B, section 45, as amended, does it carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It is carried.
Section 46, schedule B, on page 197 is an NDP amendment. All those in favour of this amendment? Opposed? That's lost.
We'll finish off section 46. Shall section 46 of schedule B carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Page 198 reflects a government amendment to schedule B, section 47. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Page 199 reflects a government amendment to schedule B, section 47. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Page 200 reflects an NDP amendment to schedule B, section 47. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Page 201 is also an NDP motion on schedule B, section 47. All those in favour? All those opposed? It's lost.
Page 202 is an NDP motion also to section 47 of schedule B. All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Shall section 47, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.
Shall section 48 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.
Shall section 49 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Shall schedule B, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Schedule B, as amended, carries.
We postponed from the very beginning a couple of sections.
Shall section 1, previously postponed, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 1 carries.
Shall section 2, previously postponed, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 2 shall carry.
Shall section 7, which is the short title of the bill, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The short title shall carry.
Shall the long title of the bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall Bill 136, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It carries.
Shall Bill 136, as amended, be reported to the House?
Mr Christopherson: Recorded vote.
Ayes
Gilchrist, Hudak, Maves, Ouellette, Smith.
Nays
Christopherson, Hoy, Patten.
The Chair: Bill 136, as amended, shall be reported to the House.
Colleagues, that concludes our proceedings for this afternoon. We will stand adjourned to be recalled at the call of the chair.
The committee adjourned at 1748.