Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENTSTATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI

CONTENTS

Thursday 1 October 1992

Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)

Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)

Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)

*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)

*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:

*Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC) for Mr Turnbull

*Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Klopp

*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Dadamo

*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters

*Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan

*In attendance / présents

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Murdock, Sharon, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour

Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd

Staff / Personnel:

Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Hopkins, Laura, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1530 in committee room 1.

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENTSTATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI

Consideration of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.

The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 3:30. We're ready to commence. Routine proceedings have been completed some time ago.

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Is there a quorum, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Present are Mr Arnott, Ms Witmer, Ms Murdock, Mr Cooper, Mr Ward and of course myself. There is a quorum.

Section 4: No amendments? I believe there is one tabled.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Yes, there is one.

The Chair: Ms Witmer moves that subsection 4(2) of the bill be struck out. Do you want to speak to that? Any further debate?

Mrs Witmer: I did want to, yes. On section 4, we just started that discussion yesterday, and this amendment was intended to maintain the exclusion for domestics. It's because of our belief that we want to ensure that there is peace and wellbeing for families, and we're very concerned then that as a result of the change, domestics would have the right to organize. We're concerned what would happen, if they were given the right to organize, in the case of a strike.

Under the replacement worker provisions, the parents are barred from using any other person to take care of children unless the children are in need of special protection as defined in the Child and Family Services Act, and since parents normally do not have other employees in the household, family members or friends could not take care of the children during such a strike, since the ban on replacement workers includes a ban on persons whether they are hired for pay or not.

Furthermore, would the firing of a domestic be subject to just-cause protection? Would this prevent a family from making decisions that really are in the best interests of the children?

We believe that these are all concerns that do need to be addressed, and just as the government has taken the time to recognize the very special needs of the family farm and has recognized that extending the right to strike to farm employees would be totally inappropriate given the need for continuing animal care, the question I ask is, should not the special needs of the private home and the need for continuing care of our children also receive similar treatment? Thus, we would move this amendment to maintain the exclusion for domestics.

The Chair: Any further discussion? All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? The motion is defeated.

We are still dealing with section 4. There is an amendment to subsection 4(4): "I move that subsection 4(4) of the bill be struck out." That is moved by Ms Witmer. Do you want to speak to that?

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Is that 4(2) or 4(4)?

The Chair: That is 4(4). We just did 4(2). My apologies, the last vote was on subsection 4(1).

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Mr Chairman, I would like to ask you a question. Is it proper that we are continuing to operate here without any representation from the Liberal Party?

The Chair: You will recall that several weeks ago it was upon unanimous consent of the committee, after direction by the subcommittee, that notwithstanding the absence of any or all members of the caucus, the committee will resume at the time stated. I understood that to be for the whole course of the consideration of Bill 40. If people want to retract their unanimous consent in that regard--is that what you are suggesting?

Mr Arnott: It was merely for clarification.

The Chair: But is your position the same as it was when we started the proceedings?

Mr Arnott: The position of our party has not changed, I guess.

The Chair: The New Democratic Party government caucus?

Ms Murdock: If the subcommittee recommended that and we passed it, then I guess we stand by it.

The Chair: All right. Subject to any other direction, that's the way we're going to proceed.

My apologies. We're voting on subsection 4(1), Ms Witmer's motion that subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out. All in favour?

Mrs Witmer: Before we do that, Mr Chairperson, yesterday we received the government motion on section 5 of the bill. That's inaccurate as printed here. Do they have a new copy for us?

The Chair: What do you mean it's "inaccurate"? A motion is a motion.

Mrs Witmer: No, no. If you look at number 2, it should say, "by striking out subparagraph 2i" instead of "2ii." I just wondered if they were going to give us a corrected version.

Ms Murdock: Do you mean 2ii?

Mrs Witmer: Yes, 2ii. Should that not be just 2i?

Ms Murdock: You're right. You are correct, and I thank you.

Mrs Witmer: Are we going to get a corrected copy of that for discussion purposes today?

The Chair: Maybe somebody will share the parliamentary assistant pay with you. What a novel proposition.

Ms Murdock: Do you want part of that for a month?

The Chair: Dealing with Ms Witmer's motion regarding subsection 4(1)--

Mrs Witmer: Subsection 4(2).

The Chair: We erroneously voted on subsection 4(2) because I called 4(2) instead of 4(1), and I apologize for that. Your motion, Ms Witmer, that subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out: All in favour? Opposed? The motion that subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out is defeated.

We're now dealing with Ms Witmer's motion to the following effect. She moves that subsection 4(2) of the bill be struck out. Ms Witmer.

Mrs Witmer: Yes. We would like to move this amendment that totally removes reference to "agriculture" from the bill.

Obviously, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in its presentation has put forward some excellent points in support of our amendment. As we all know, in January of this past year the Minister of Labour did establish the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations with a mandate to advise the government on an appropriate course of action as far as agriculture and labour relations are concerned.

In June that task force unanimously recommended the extension of organizing rights to farm workers. They recommended that it be established within the framework of a separate agricultural labour relations act. Then, on August 27 of this year, the Minister of Labour announced that the government had accepted all the recommendations of the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations and asked the task force to advise the government on the specifics of an agricultural labour relations act by early this fall.

As a result of the action that has been taken by the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations and as a result of the request by the minister that it take a look at the specifics, we are recommending that all references to agriculture should be removed from Bill 40. In contrast to the reception that was given the task force report, we must remember that the OFA told us that the farm community does not welcome Bill 40. If adopted, the relevant amendments would transfer the prerogative of applying the Ontario Labour Relations Act to agriculture from the Legislature to the minister acting by regulation.

Farmers are objecting to Bill 40 for two reasons. First, they believe it circumvents the authority and discretion of the Ontario Legislature on a fundamental matter of labour market policy. Application of a labour relations regime to an entire sector of the economy is not an administrative matter to be left to the best judgement of the minister of the day. Generally the Legislature, not the Lieutenant Governor in Council, should decide to whom statutory protections and responsibilities apply.

Secondly, farmers object to Bill 40 because the amending provisions of Bill 40 signal--and this is very important--a lack of faith in the ability of the Task Force on Agricultural Labour Relations to develop a workable labour relations regime for the farm workplace. Unfortunately, the apparent mistrust undermines the process and compromises its ability to achieve consensus, and for that reason--

The Chair: Any further discussion? Mr Offer.

Mrs Witmer: I was going to say that for that reason, we in the Ontario PC Party believe very strongly that the reference to agriculture should be totally removed from the bill.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): With respect to this amendment, I wholeheartedly agree. It is in fact one which I was to move myself.

I think we have to take a little bit of a look at this issue. In dealing with agriculture and horticulture and silviculture there was a task force set up, and I think the work, by all accounts I have heard by the task force members, was extremely well done. I think they looked at a variety of issues. They weighed, assessed, analysed and looked at its impact and implications and at the end of the day, I believe they came out with a report which was six points, but was also unanimous. It isn't easy to get unanimity. We strive for that, we hope to get some consensus, but this report came up with six recommendations unanimously.

1540

One of the recommendations is that there should be a standalone piece of legislation which would apply to agricultural workers. It is my recollection that the recommendation for standalone legislation was unanimous and was looked upon with some hope.

Having said that, it is also important to recognize that what was to be contained within the standalone piece, what were going to be the provisions, had not yet been discussed. They knew this was the first step of a fairly long, arduous journey, but they were willing to take a look at the issues and to look upon them in the context of a piece of legislation that stood by itself in dealing with agricultural workers.

What I am hearing is that Bill 40 really flies in the face of the work done by the task force and I think we have to realize this. I'm receiving telephone calls from people involved in different aspects of our agricultural field and they are saying, "We agreed on a standalone piece of legislation and we want to now take a look at what should be within it." We are now looking at Bill 40, which does nothing to forward that. It says that the minister can by regulation bring people into the Ontario Labour Relations Act who are involved in agriculture, horticulture or silviculture.

The task force was clear: They do not want to be part and do not believe they should be part of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. They believe there is a very real and distinct possibility of an agricultural labour relations act, but that is different from the Ontario Labour Relations Act. They are worried, they are concerned, they are distressed that the work of the task force has been undermined.

I know we are speaking about subsection 4(2), because in subsection 4(2) we are repealing clauses (b) and (c) of existing section 2 of the Labour Relations Act. Now that's a total, clear, distinct exclusion from the Ontario Labour Relations Act. It's clear, it's total, it's distinct. There's no question about it and I believe there never has been. It says in the act, "This act does not apply," and I read from the current Ontario Labour Relations Act:

"(b) to a person employed in agriculture, hunting or trapping;

"(c) to a person, other than an employee of a municipality or a person employed in silviculture, who is employed in horticulture by an employer whose primary business is agriculture or horticulture."

The exclusion is absolutely clear and they are saying, "We want that exclusion to continue." That is why I speak directly to the point and to the amendment of 4(2), because though the wording looks very, very close, there are five words at the end of clause (c) which say "except as provided under subsection (2)." We're going to get into subsection (2) of the act down the line.

That is a major bone of contention with the agricultural community now. They worked long and hard on their task force. They worked together. They ended up with a unanimous report. One of the points called for a distinct and separate labour relations act, and I think they actually called it the agricultural labour relations act. Subsection 4(2) of the bill says that there is not necessarily going to be a separate piece of legislation. The agricultural workers in this province know that.

I have heard other stories about time constraints that they are being put under. They are worried. They said, "If you agreed with our task report"--and I believe, actually, that during the hearings, I can't recall which member, but when the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was making a presentation, Mr Hope--it was Mr Hope--stood to them and said, "I have today in my hand a press release--

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): No, I didn't. You are dreaming now.

Mr Offer: Pardon me?

Mr Hope: You're hallucinating now.

Mr Offer: What did you say?

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Offer.

Mr Offer: Well, Mr Hope will have an opportunity to express his opinion if he so wishes. However, maybe it wasn't Mr Hope, but indeed there was a--

Mr Hope: Now you're really hallucinating.

Mr Offer: Mr Hope was taking credit--

The Chair: Mr Hope has many opinions.

Mr Offer: He was taking credit for that press release, but the press release was waved at the deputants representing the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, saying that the Minister of Labour has agreed to the separate piece of legislation. Even the parliamentary assistant is shaking her head in the affirmative, because she was at the hearings.

Ms Murdock: Yes, we agreed to all of them.

Mr Offer: And I thought that was right. So what are we left with? In Bill 40 we are left with clause 4(2)(c) which has those magic five words at the end, "except as provided under subsection (2)."

If the Minister of Labour and the Ministry of Labour, as I know the officials are, are true to their word on this, then they will have no problem in accepting this amendment, none whatsoever. There will be absolutely no problem in accepting this amendment, which says to the task force, "We agree with the standalone piece of legislation."

If the government members vote this section down, it is saying to the members of the task force, those people who worked long and hard, "We might get you into this bill by regulation." You cannot deny it, those are the words of your own Bill 40. It is undeniable, and that's why, I can assure you, there are many members in the agricultural community who will be waiting to hear and to see how the members of the government vote on this amendment.

1550

I have indicated my support for the amendment. The agricultural workers and the agricultural community are very concerned that the government will not support this amendment, because what it does in those five last words is it allows agricultural workers in this province to be found under the Ontario Labour Relations Act by regulation. We're going to talk about subsection 4(4). We're going to talk about that in the next little while, but this is an important section in so far as it is in tandem with the next amendment of subsection (4). I know that if these two pass, then there would have to be a third amendment at the end of the day dealing with limiting the regulation-making powers under the legislation.

We are dealing with one of the main staples of our economy. We're not dealing with a small issue here. We're dealing with a very large issue. We're not dealing with a matter that has not yet been addressed, because it has been addressed. We are not dealing with a matter the issues of which have not been canvassed, because that task force did, and after--I don't know how long they were proceeding but I know it was a substantial period of time--they were clear and they were unanimous that there is the need for a standalone piece of legislation.

I'm going to be voting in favour. It's an amendment, as I indicated earlier, that I would have brought forward. I want the government members to think about this a little bit, because I'm sure that each of them, or many of them in their own communities have members in the agricultural field. They will be asked the question, "Why did you vote against this amendment if you are so certain that there will be a standalone piece of legislation?"

I am hopeful that the government members will stand behind the task force report. I'm sure that they've made speeches--I shouldn't say that. I'm sure that speeches could be made about how important that task force was and the report was and how important it was that it was done in a unanimous way.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): That's today's game.

Mr Offer: Mr Huget has now risen to the occasion.

You're going to have to answer the question as to, if that's the case, if that's what you truly believe, then why would you allow subsection 4(2) as it is now in the legislation to be passed? It flies in the face of a unanimous report by the task force. It permits agricultural workers to be drawn in by regulation, something I believe the task force was adamantly opposed to.

I am certainly receiving a number of telephone calls and letters. I have been asked to appear at a number of events to state my position on this matter. My position is clear and my party's position is clear. We are in agreement that the exclusion, the prohibition, that now exists in the Ontario Labour Relations Act should continue, that there should not be any opportunity for any Minister of Labour to bring in agriculture and horticulture by way of regulation and that there should be an agreed upon, standalone agricultural labour relations act.

It's not easy to bring that in. There are many, many issues and hurdles to be overcome. There are many interests that have to be addressed, not just standing alone and saying, "We're in favour of a standalone piece of legislation."

There's a suspicion out there--let's be frank about this--that if 4(2) passes, there is ample opportunity for agricultural workers to be included by way of regulation and that there will be less of an impetus for the creation of such a standalone piece. I think it's a very real concern. I think it's a valid concern. It's one which I'm hearing all the time, and now, on this one clause, I have extreme concerns that if the government members vote against this amendment, many of the fears out there will be heightened.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Arnott. On Ms Witmer's motion.

Mr Arnott: Yes. I intend to support this motion. I know the farmers in Wellington county would support it and would want me to support it as well.

The Chair: There being no further debate, all in favour of the motion please indicate.

Mr Offer: Mr Chair, I think the parliamentary assistant wants to speak.

Ms Murdock: I do want to speak to it, Mr Chair.

The Chair: I thought you were indicating that you still thought I was number one.

Ms Murdock: You're making a very broad assumption there.

The Chair: That was only one finger raised, wasn't it? Go ahead, Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: I think it has to be said, particularly after the comments made by my colleagues in the opposition, first of all, that you're right, the task force was instituted right after the discussion paper was put out, and at its behest, because it did have different kinds of concerns.

The six items very specifically are the standalone piece of legislation, the extension of the right to organize and bargain collectively to persons employed in agriculture or horticulture, prohibition on the right to strike or lockout and substitution of a dispute resolution process--all of this came from the task force--as well as the creation of a conciliation, mediation and adjudicative service, the establishment of educational programs, and then the continuation of the task force with a mandate to continue what it was doing, with a report to come out yesterday, actually, but it has asked us for an extension of one month, so it's been given that as well.

Having said all that, I think it's really important to recognize that it's not any lack of faith in the task force or any apparent mistrust, as was mentioned. In fact, if anything, it is saying to them that they're going to have to determine for themselves which groups will remain under their standalone piece of legislation or which groups may end up staying under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. That's for them to determine, and therefore they are going to have to decide how the new act will delete the section, not in this section.

So we're not supporting that, but I want it clearly understood that it has no basis in terms of a lack of faith in the task force's abilities.

The Chair: Mr Offer.

Ms Murdock: Thanks for interrupting.

1600

Mr Offer: I'd like to thank the parliamentary assistant for that answer because it brings out a few other issues I think we should be discussing.

The September 30--I didn't bring that up in my comments because--members of the government will recall my earlier comments, they were but five minutes ago. One of the things I had heard was that the government had said, "You've got to come up with something by September 30."

Now, I wasn't exactly certain as to what was being said, but they were saying that this September 30 is totally unreasonable. It is impossible to meet; it is a prescription for disaster; it is setting the stage for the government, if this part of the bill passes, to say: "Listen, we allowed them to try to come up with their own act. We gave them probably all of 30 days. We even gave them another extension for a whole 30 more days. They can't come up with that, so we're going to have to do it by regulation." It's interesting that this is what I heard. The parliamentary assistant, in many ways, has heightened my concern when she brought forward that September 30 date.

The other point I bring forward is that some people in the agricultural field will find themselves part of the act--the standalone piece, the agricultural labour relations act, whatever that is and whenever that may be--and some may not. This is a new set of rules and guidelines as far as I am concerned. What do you mean, some may and some may not? Is there an opt-in provision here that if you do not want to be part of the agricultural labour relations act, even though you do not want to be because of concerns with the legislation, we're going to get you into the Ontario Labour Relations Act and we're going to do that by way of regulation?

I have a feeling that what is happening here is that the task force, both as contemplated by the ministry and by the participants in the task force, on day one was looked upon in a very positive and hopeful light. I sense that as time progresses there is a breaking up, that no longer are the task force members and their representative associations really in sync with the direction the Ministry of Labour may want them to be.

It would seem to me that this again is a further reason why it is imperative we give to the agricultural workers in this province the security they're asking for. They're asking for a vote of confidence, and we can do that by agreeing with this amendment and the following complementary amendment.

I know we're not yet speaking to the following amendment, but we will be. I am concerned that to vote against this amendment is to really say to the agricultural workers, "You're going to find yourselves in the Ontario Labour Relations Act or in the agricultural labour relations act." If you don't want that, this is saying, "Too bad; you're going to find yourself in it." I cannot allow that. I don't think anybody can allow that.

I don't think the parliamentary assistant, who I'm sure has people in her riding in the agricultural field--I certainly do, though my riding has become very urbanized in the last 10 or 15 years in the northern portion of Mississauga. We still have some agricultural operations in that area, and I think that we all should care very deeply about their concerns. You see, their concerns here are not on what a section says and what it means; their concerns are that this is the first step into being included into a piece of legislation that they, firstly, do not want to be included in, and secondly, in a manner that they find totally objectionable.

It is very big step which we are taking. I would think, Mr Huget, you have some constituents in the agricultural field. I'm sure that you would feel concerned about this. Mr Ward, I know. Mr Wood--

Ms Murdock: I think there's a point that needs to be clarified very specifically. The premise on which you're basing your argument is that, for instance, the September 30 date was chosen by us as the government or the Ministry of Labour, which is not the case at all. It was one of the recommendations that the task force itself came up with. They were the ones who set the September 30 deadline for themselves, and it was, specifically, "To advise in the design of an agricultural labour relations statute and a company administrative structure, as well as supportive educational programs for participants to the process."

They set their own date of September 30 and have now asked for an extension, so it is not the government and it is not the Ministry of Labour that has set this time frame. So I would say to you that you can't use the argument that you've been using for the past 10 minutes.

Mr Offer: You know, you bring that up, but that's not an argument which I made up.

Interjections.

Mr Offer: The interesting point is, that's an argument and a point which was conveyed to me. I didn't, as you will recall in my opening comments, speak about the date of September 30. You brought it forward and then I said, "My goodness gracious, I've received calls and letters on that September 30 date, that it is unrealistic."

Ms Murdock: Well, then, tell the task force that, because it chose it.

Mr Offer: The point that I am making here is that the people who are calling me are saying they are feeling that it is a date which is, firstly, unrealistic, because it is their thought that they have to have some sort of act agreed to by then. Certainly ministry officials will know that a piece of legislation takes much greater than 30 days. So they are saying that it is their belief they had to do this, and it is their concern that if they don't have the framework or whatever agreed to, this could be the beginning of the government saying, "Well, I know that you wanted such a standalone piece, but you can't agree as to what it should be, so we want to give all due consideration to the task force and so we won't proceed with a standalone piece." But it does leave the magic five words of the section that we are talking about, "except as provided under subsection," and then the number 2.

There is no response, there is no comment that a government member can make to that concern. If it is in fact the true desire of the Ministry of Labour to allow agricultural workers in this province to be protected and found under a standalone piece of legislation referred to as the agricultural labour relations act, then you will not permit the legislation to be changed to allow such a matter to take place by way of regulation. The task force doesn't want that. Nobody wants that. I know regulation falls under the following subsection, so we'll hold our comments to that until then. But the question will be: Are you in favour of the task force report and its recommendations, or aren't you? If you are, then you will vote against the section; you will vote in favour of the amendment. If you are not, in reality, then you will vote down this amendment.

1610

The Chair: All in favour of Ms Witmer's motion, please indicate. Opposed? Motion defeated.

Mr Offer moves that subsection 4(2) of the bill be struck out. That motion's out of order.

Ms Witmer moves that subsection 4(4) of the bill be struck out. Go ahead, Ms Witmer.

Mrs Witmer: Subsection 4(4)?

The Chair: Yes, ma'am.

Mrs Witmer: Okay. This amendment, again, removes the reference to agriculture from the bill. With the same type of arguments that have just been put forward regarding this section and the fact that there is a task force on agricultural labour relations that is advising the government on an appropriate course of action--as a result of that taking place, I believe very strongly that any reference to agriculture within this bill should be removed.

I would remind you again that the farm community and farmers across this province do not welcome Bill 40. They do feel very good about the task force report thus far, and certainly it is their hope that it is the task force which will decide the future course of action. As a result, we would like to see this totally removed.

I would also remind you again that if you include the agricultural community within Bill 40, you really are sending out a signal to the farming community that you do have a lack of faith in the ability of the task force to develop a workable labour relations regime for the farm workplace. You know, if you're sending out that type of message, it's undermining the entire process that has taken place thus far, and it really is compromising their ability to achieve any consensus whatsoever.

So I would ask you to be very sensitive to and cognizant of the concerns of the farming community. They feel very comfortable with the task force. They do not feel comfortable with being included within Bill 40, and I would ask that you remove any reference whatsoever to agriculture from this bill.

Mr Offer: I have a few comments that I would like to make on this subsection. I spoke earlier about my support of the previous amendment and I spoke about my concerns if the government members voted against the amendment which has now allowed this subsection to come into play. I just can't believe the government members will not be aware of the very real concerns that are going to emanate through the agricultural community because of the way you have previously voted. You are just living in a fantasy land if you do not believe that agricultural workers across this province are going to be extremely concerned with what you are doing.

So I move to this amendment--and it is an amendment, again, which my party was ready to bring forward--that asks that subsection 4(4) of the bill be struck out. Subsection 4(4) of the bill is an amendment to section 2. Let's listen to what this now says, because this is what you are going to be called upon to do. "The act"--meaning the Ontario Labour Relations Act--"applies to a person employed in such class of agricultural or horticultural operations as may be prescribed by regulation."

Remember what the current act says. The current act, the one that is in force in this province now, the one which agricultural workers and horticultural workers approve of and agree with, says, "This act"--meaning, again, the Ontario Labour Relations Act--"does not apply to a person employed in agriculture, hunting or trapping." Bill 40 now says that the act does apply to these individuals "as may be prescribed by regulation."

Two fundamental issues arise. The first is that we now have, or maybe soon will have--I am still hopeful that the government members will come to their senses. The Labour Relations Act of the province of Ontario does not apply to workers in the agricultural and horticultural fields. This section now says that in the province of Ontario the Ontario Labour Relations Act "applies to a person employed in such class of agricultural or horticultural operations as may be prescribed by regulation."

When we step back and ask ourselves what that means, we all come to the same answer: We don't know what it means. We don't know what it means for the Ontario Labour Relations Act to apply to persons involved in agricultural or horticultural operations, yet the government is ready to pass that into law.

I'm confident that there are a great many people in this province who, when they find out what the government does--I hope they will not do this. I am still holding on with some degree of hope that you will not do this, but if you do this, I am absolutely certain that the people outside this committee room will say: "How could they do that? How could the government say that the Ontario Labour Relations Act `applies to person employed in such class of agricultural or horticultural operations as may be prescribed by regulation'?" How can you do that when you haven't addressed what that means? How can you say, "You should be in this legislation," when you don't know what the impact of that is?

1620

This is not a matter which was brought forward during our hearings in an ongoing way. I stand to be corrected, but I think we heard one submission from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture which dealt with this matter, and they were crystal clear: They are opposed, opposed, opposed to these changes, and here we are within moments of doing this.

What does this mean at harvest time? What does this mean to greenhouse operations? What does this mean to a variety of facilities across this province? I know that everybody has the same answer, and I know what they're saying: "We don't know what it means." So my question is, why are you ready to bring it into law? Why are you ready to bring into law something which is going to affect so many people without knowing the ramifications? We're dealing here with a product which is perishable. We're dealing with the perishability of products on an hourly basis and you--hopefully not, but I am starting to be a little less optimistic--are ready to put that into law. I have some major concerns and reservations.

Now I go to the second part of my concerns--there are not 10 parts to my concerns, so there will be some degree of relief involved--regulation. Well, isn't this the case: Not only do you not know what it's going to mean; you are ready to wash your hands of it.

What does "regulation" mean? I know there are a number of members elected for the first time, but I know we are also into our third year and so everyone should recognize by now that "regulation" means changes can be made through the stroke of a pen by the minister, approved by cabinet. There isn't anybody in this room who has any say in this matter, except, of course, for the ministry officials. There aren't any elected members here, with due respect, who will have any say in that stroke of the pen.

When that happens, where are we left? Is there a process in the legislation for you to bring the concerns, positive aspects, negative aspects, opinions and comments of your constituents to the legislative floor? Will you have the opportunity to debate on the floor of the Legislature what your constituents say about the changes to how agricultural and horticultural workers are brought forward?

We know the answer to that. We know you will not have the opportunity because you can't debate regulations in the Legislature. They're not brought forward; you read about them in press releases. So what do you say to your constituents? The members in this room will have a harder go of it, though I'm hopeful they won't. But those who vote in favour of the provision in the bill or against the amendment that is proposed will not only have to say, "I can't bring forward your concerns in the Legislature," but you're also the reason for them because you voted the way you did.

What do you say when those regulations are brought forward, when your constituent greenhouse operations say: "When are the public hearings on that? We have some concerns"? We know what you're going to say, because we're all going to say the same thing. When it's done by regulation, there aren't any hearings. They say, "Well, when are you going to be coming to my community so that I can provide some input to these regulations?" You're not going to be able to say. You're going to have to explain to the groups that they're excluded. Then they're going to ask: "So why did you vote that way? What were you so afraid of in excluding that type of input, that type of consultation, that type of participation?"

The Chair will recognize that I'm not speaking about the new House rules, but notwithstanding, what do you say about those things? You voted in favour of those things. You've voted in favour of allowing change by regulation. That is the concern in a nutshell: firstly, that the Labour Relations Act now says that the act, again referring to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, does not apply to a person employed in agriculture, hunting or trapping. Bill 40 now says the act applies to a person employed in such class of agricultural or horticultural operations as may be prescribed by regulation--a double-edged sword: Firstly, they are in; secondly, they are in without consultation.

I am very much opposed to the inclusion of individuals without their input, without participation and without consultation. I'm very much opposed to us, legislators, not being able to deal with those matters on the floor of the Legislature to speak either in favour or against. That's our right; that's something we have. We can speak in favour or against. But there's something which is certainly common, whether one speaks in favour or against, and that is the right one has to speak. That isn't there with regulation.

Thirdly, when it is by regulation, there is no opportunity, however constrained, however defined, for hearings to take place through a committee of the Legislature. Don't ever think for a moment that a ministerial task force moving from community to community is a fine replacement for a legislative committee. There are concerns that people have with politicians today, but I'll tell you something: They want to be able to come to legislative committees where there is representation from all parties, where there are, in many cases, different viewpoints, where, in many cases, parties agree--and there are many cases where parties do not. But the people come and they feel there is a sense that there are those who want to hear what they're saying, and that's what happens in a legislative committee. Regulation takes that away.

1630

I believe strongly that to allow this to happen in this bill is to underscore the concerns that I am hearing in the agricultural community. This isn't something I make up; this is something that is responsive to letters and telephone calls I'm receiving. I am receiving almost frenzied telephone calls. I spoke with people in the evening, on weekends, and as I said, in my riding we are not by any stretch of the imagination predominantly agricultural.

My riding is part of a city, Mississauga. There's a commercial, a retail, an industrial and a residential sector, and there is an agricultural sector, but that is the sector that seems to be declining a bit as growth continues in the greater Toronto area. So for people to seek me out to express their concerns is sending out a very strong message that they are distressed with the direction Bill 40 is taking and they are distressed that the hopes, the great optimism that was there when the task force started its work, are being eroded by Bill 40, and they are right.

You could, by voting in favour of the amendment which takes away the right to prescribe by regulation, inject a new sense of faith and hope. If you vote against this amendment, you are going to cause concerns in this province the likes of which you just do not imagine. You will find them; they will be there. You may think, "Oh, my goodness, this just isn't the case." The fact of the matter is, it is absolutely the case, and you're going to have to ask yourself, and certainly answer to your constituents involved in these operations, why you permitted any piece of legislation to include people without their participation and without your ability to participate on the legislative floor or through a member in this Legislature through the committee process.

Remember that regulations are not just one day. It isn't just on a Tuesday that we receive the news release from the Minister of Labour re agricultural and horticultural operations. No, it will happen one day, but there will be more to follow. So what you are doing is building not only an issue which you cannot explain away--I mean, you cannot explain away that--you are building it because, remember, as you read the first set of regulations, my friends in the Legislature, and go back to your constituency and hear the concerns, this provision is still in effect.

And there will be more regulations and more inclusions and more exclusions and more people who find themselves--as we've heard today from the parliamentary assistant, if you're not in the agricultural labour relations act, they're going to get you in the Ontario Labour Relations Act, or maybe it will be vice versa. I don't know, but I do know this: that if I don't know, neither does any member in this committee know. You have to ask yourself, are you acting responsibly when you are allowing pieces and sections of legislation to pass, the impact of which, the implications of which, you do not know?

The Chair: All those in favour of Ms Witmer's motion? Opposed?

Mr Offer: I'd like a recorded vote on that.

The Chair: Fine, a recorded vote.

The committee divided on Mrs Witmer's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

AyesB3

Arnott, Offer, Witmer.

NaysB6

Cooper, Hope, Huget, Murdock, Ward, Wood.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

Mr Offer moves that subsection 4(4) of the bill be struck out. That's out of order.

Ms Witmer moves that section 5 of the bill be struck out. That's out of order.

Mr Offer moves that section 5 of the bill be struck out. That's out of order.

Mr Offer: Excuse me, Mr Chair. On section 5 of the bill, I move that section 5 of the bill be struck out, and section 5 of the bill--correct me if I'm mistaken--

The Chair: That motion's out of order.

Mr Offer: You've ruled that as out of order?

The Chair: Yes. If you're going to defeat a clause, you vote against it in clause-by-clause; you don't move a motion amending it. Thank you.

Mr Offer: That's fine. Thank you very much for that explanation, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Any time, Mr Offer.

Ms Murdock moves that section 5 of the bill be amended as follows:

"1. By striking out `facilitating' in the second and third lines of paragraph 1 of section 2.1 of the act and substituting `protecting.'

Ms Murdock: You are using the replacement motion, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Yes.

"2. By striking out subparagraph 2i of section 2.1 of the act and substituting the following:

"i. the ability of employees to negotiate terms and conditions of employment with their employer.

"3. By adding at the end `and the act is further amended by repealing the preamble to the act.'"

Ms Murdock: I think it has been stated fairly clearly yesterday by both Mr Offer and Mrs Witmer how many people, particularly from the employer groups, came forward and stated their concerns over some of the wording in the section. In fact, it was the focal point by many of the presenters.

Certainly, if I went back into all of the presentations that were made to us, I can think of Project Economic Growth, the More Jobs Coalition, the Municipal Electric Association, Ontario chambers of commerce--all of them--and Inco from my own riding. Paul Nykanen himself was in here, and he stated that the two words that we are changing in today's amendment were lightning rods to the business community. As a consequence of their concern over those two words, we are changing the word "facilitating" in paragraph 1 and substituting "protecting."

But also, in subparagraph 2ii--no, single i. Sorry; I'm getting confused here. I just notice that we removed the word for the purpose of "improving," which again was stated to be a lightning rod for the business community. I believe that this demonstrates quite clearly that we have responded to the major concerns. It was almost without fail that these were the specific areas they were worried about, and we have shown--that's about all I have to say.

1640

Mr Offer: Mr Chair, I'd like a ruling on this motion. I asked the question on my section as to why my amendment on section 5 was out of order. You clearly indicated that the reason is that you just speak and vote against it, if that be your wish. There is one aspect of this motion which I find troubling and I believe may now be out of order. I think we have to discuss that.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr Offer: That is number 3. I'm sure it will not come as a surprise to you. It says, "by adding at the end `and the act is further amended by repealing the preamble to the act.'" I believe that is, first, a matter which is not at all alluded to in the current section 5. I hope I'm dealing with the right section; I'm referring to it as section 5 of the bill. The word "preamble" is not dealt with in section 5. In fact, I think we will remember some fairly lengthy discussion yesterday over section 3 of the bill, which spoke to application and purposes of the act, and my concern at that point that the word "purposes" shouldn't be there was struck down. However, here we have a question, and I believe it is out of order that--

The Chair: I understand your position.

Mr Offer: --the words "repealing the preamble" in a section which does not allude to the preamble is talking about a matter in a section of a bill that was not there before. It is as if you could pass a piece of legislation saying, "I move that we amend section 5 of the bill by the following and repeal the rest of the bill." I think, listening to the Chair's earlier ruling on section 5, it is a matter where you can't just repeal, you vote against. I believe that's what you said about my clause in section 5.

The Chair: It's exactly what I said.

Mr Offer: So in my opinion, it would be doing by this amendment that which you have said we could not do--and which I agree with, by the way--by my previous amendment, repealing section 5. If you don't want the preamble, you vote against the preamble. But I do believe it to be out of order to speak to another part in an act which is not part of the bill and bring it into another section of the bill which it has absolutely no reference to, in this case, the preamble. I believe it's being sort of fancy with the words--and I know why, because we had some discussion yesterday about that--but I do believe strongly that this is absolutely out of order, to try to repeal a part of the act through an amendment to a section to which it has absolutely no reference and there is no connection.

I believe this is an important ruling. I believe it would set and can set a precedent that would be extremely dangerous. It would allow people to repeal whole acts with one amendment to a section of a bill, as long as you put in the words "by repealing the rest of the act"; in this case, the preamble to the act. I do not believe that has ever happened. I fervently believe that according to the rules, according to practice, according to all of the other experiences in clause-by-clause, it is doing something through the back door which may be dealing with another problem. It would seem to me that the only way in which this could be done--maybe I shouldn't express my opinion as to how it could be done, except to say that I do not believe, in all frankness, that this is at all in order to try to do this through an amendment to a section which has absolutely no applicability to, in this case, the preamble.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms Witmer, I trust you agree entirely with Mr Offer and join every one of his arguments?

Mrs Witmer: Yes. I'd like to take this opportunity to indicate that I do agree with Mr Offer for all of the reasons that he's put forward.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Offer referred to precedent. Firstly, at the very beginning of this process yesterday Ms Witmer made a motion, moving that the bill be amended by adding the following: "The preamble to the Labour Relations Act is repealed and the following substituted." Ms Witmer successfully moved a motion amending the act, addressing specifically the preamble, without joining that to any other section of the bill; not the act, the bill. Then Mr Offer similarly moved that the bill be amended by the following section at the beginning of part II: "The preamble is repealed and the following substituted." Mr Offer successfully moved a motion, in order--he wouldn't move a motion that was out of order--that addressed the preamble, indeed very specifically repealed it.

I feel, among other things, that my ruling or my consideration of those particular motions was in order, and that is to say that they weren't ruled out of order. Too, Mr Offer speaks of precedent and I feel bound by the precedent that was established yesterday when Mr Offer's motion was accepted and debated and when Ms Witmer's motion was accepted and debated, both of them purporting to repeal or seeking the repeal of the preamble to the act.

This particular motion indeed does more because this motion creates a connection between section 5 of the bill, which is the purpose clause, and the repeal of the preamble. Clearly, although perhaps some people say they're not--what would you say--mutually exclusive, the fact is that section 5 is there in the bill and the intent of the amendment is to in effect substitute the purpose clause for the preamble.

So having heard that, having done what I did yesterday, neither of you having raised objection to what I did yesterday--and I wouldn't expect any, because as I say neither of you would move a motion that was out of order--I'm finding this motion in order, and that's that.

Mr Offer: I would like to get a clarification on this. I certainly do understand the point which you bring forward with respect to the motions that were brought yesterday, and I must say I had somewhat anticipated that that might be the precedent that one would use, firstly to indicate when those motions were brought forward. Members hope that they never bring motions that are out of order; certainly you never hope that. Sometimes, however, it happens.

I note that there was no ruling, Mr Chair, as to whether they were or were not out of order. There was no objection made to that. It is my understanding that to use as a precedent a ruling on an earlier day that was not made is something which I find a tad light. I think that I certainly could understand the point which you make, if there had been a motion made stating that this was not in order and that you had ruled that it was in order, and so I have a concern about using yesterday's introduction of an amendment to the preamble as a precedent when the issue of in order or not was never raised by the committee.

The second point I would make--it almost sounds as if I should be gowned--is that this is an amendment to an existing section of the bill which does not refer to preamble.

1650

Mr Hope: Are you challenging the Chair?

Mr Offer: No, no.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Offer.

Mr Offer: I can't imagine where I would actually ever challenge a Chair, and I say that because I heard the comments--

The Chair: The last government removed that right.

Mr Offer: I said that I can't remember. I can't recall ever doing that or ever being able or ever thinking I would ever do that, but I do think that it is important for me, because I heard a comment by Mr Hope, "It sounds like he's challenging the Chair." Of course I wouldn't do that.

Mr Hope: The decision was made. What are you arguing the decision for?

Mr Offer: But I do have a very deep concern, again, over the two points, one of which I have finished speaking to, and that was to use as a precedent a ruling which was in fact never made, and secondly, to deal again with the section and bringing into an amendment to a section in a bill an aspect of the act to which it is not referable. Right now we have in Bill 40 the contemplated purposes of the act. It speaks nothing to preamble. You've thrown in preamble. There is no connection.

Mr Chair, I have listened carefully to what you have said. I have very, very grave concerns of precedents being followed on rulings that weren't made.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms Witmer, do you agree with Mr Offer and join in on all the criticisms he's made?

Mrs Witmer: I think Mr Offer has made an excellent presentation and argument and I would support him.

The Chair: All right. Notwithstanding that no debate shall be permitted on any decision of the Chair, pursuant to standing order 118, this is committee and not the House, and let's never forget that, which means that perhaps some more liberal interpretation of not only the standing orders but also the rules of procedure, in the interests of fairness, are appropriate.

Mr Offer talks about nobody having objected on a point of order to either his motion, which was debated and voted upon, or Ms Witmer's motion, which was debated and voted upon. Similarly, nobody raised a point of order on Ms Witmer's motion that section 5 of the bill be struck out, and notwithstanding that nobody objected on a point of order to that, I still ruled it out of order because it was obviously out of order. Similarly, nobody raised on a point of order an objection to Mr Offer's motion that section 5 of the bill be struck out, but notwithstanding that nobody rose on a point of order, the Chair still ruled it out of order because it was out of order. That's the first comment Mr Offer had.

The second comment is that there's nothing referable in part 3 of this motion by Ms Murdock addressing section 5 to section 5 itself. I understand what you're saying, but I'm sorry, I disagree with you, because to me there's very clearly a reference and a logical connection between the preamble and the repeal of the preamble and the purpose clause and the amendment of that purpose clause in the bill.

Mr Offer: Oh.

The Chair: That's the way I see it.

Having said that--and again, I regret the fact that Chairs or Speakers can no longer be challenged; I wasn't supportive of that rule change when it happened back before the last election and there are days when I would dearly love to see it in effect now--the committee has the capacity to appeal this ruling to the Speaker. I'll put the question to the committee. It can vote in support of this request or in opposition to it, and the question I put to the committee is: Is it the wish of the committee to appeal the ruling of the Chair to the Speaker? All those in favour of appealing that ruling? Yes, sir?

Mr Offer: I just want to ask one question. I know that you are well aware of the rules. This is a very serious matter, especially dealing with the appeal of a Chair. Could I ask for a 10-minute adjournment to think about how I'd like to vote on that? It's very important.

The Chair: That's on consent.

Mr Offer: Thank you.

The committee recessed at 1656 and resumed at 1714.

The Chair: I once again shall put to the committee the question: Is it the wish of the committee to appeal the ruling of the Chair to the Speaker? Those in favour, please indicate. Those opposed? Okay, it is not the wish, then, of the committee to appeal the ruling of the Chair to the Speaker. All right.

Ms Murdock: I have already spoken to section 5, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Any other debate? Mr Offer, go ahead.

Mr Offer: Though I was thinking about something else in our time that we were off, I did look at the replacement government motion on section 5 of the bill and I think the parliamentary assistant is correct with respect to that area of 2.1 and the impact that the words "improving their terms and conditions of employment" had with respect to many people coming before the committee.

I think it is clear that the concerns they did bring forward to the committee were very valid and could have had some major repercussions. It's my understanding, as I read this now, that 2i just talks about "the ability of employees to negotiate terms and conditions of employment with their employer" and it takes out the improving of terms, the word "improving." I think we heard through our committee hearing what the impact of that might be.

I also see that they've taken out in the first instance "facilitating" and moved it to "protecting" the right of employees to choose. When I read the section now, it says it ensures "that workers can freely exercise the right to organize by protecting the right of employees to choose." Then it goes on and says, "join and be represented by a trade union of their choice and to participate in the lawful activities of the trade union." I can't recall many of the presentations that spoke to the issue of moving "facilitating" to "protecting." I think there was much discussion under the improving of terms, but not from "facilitating" to "protecting."

I must say this is almost bringing in, to my mind, a new substantive provision, as is going to be indicated in the purpose clause, and I have concerns, obviously, with the purpose clause. I have concerns because it really is, in my opinion, going to tip the balance. It's going to move the labour relations board, because this is going to govern the labour relations board.

This is a purpose clause. It is not a preamble, it is a purpose clause, and it is my opinion that the impact that a purpose clause has within a piece of legislation is much more severe than a preamble. The preamble of the current act--just bear with me for one moment--states:

"Whereas it is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees...."

That's a preamble which I can't imagine anyone having any real problem with. It's there, it states in general principles the direction, the form, that should be the rule in the province. In many ways it's the pavement on the road that people take in labour relations in the province. I believe it's worked well in the past and I believe it is there as a signpost for the future.

It is unfortunate that the government feels it should be repealed. It is unfortunate that they feel these agreed-upon, accepted, understood principles that now exist in the Labour Relations Act as a preamble should be ripped out of the Labour Relations Act of the province of Ontario and replaced with what as a preamble? Replaced with nothing, which is quite interesting.

1720

It seems to me that we shouldn't underestimate this. A preamble is important in sending out the message, in sending out the flavour, in sending out a perception. My goodness, how many times did we hear in our hearings about perception and how Bill 40 has been and continues to be perceived as bad for investment? Now there may be those who disagree. I haven't found anyone, but it is still perceived as being bad for investment.

The preamble to the Labour Relations Act does not have that connotation. It has a connotation that the province of Ontario respects the worker's right to join a union, respects a worker's right to take part in the lawful activities of a union, respects the need for harmonious relations. I think that can be equated to job creation. I believe we have been the recipient of that in this province, that preambles, principles, messages and positive perceptions--people sometimes think that perception is only negative--are equated to jobs, to people opening up businesses in this province, expanding existing businesses in this province, looking upon this province as welcoming capital, investment and job creation.

Now what we have in Bill 40 is not only that a purpose clause, the particulars of which I want to deal with in a moment--but the last part which now says, "The purpose of the act"--just think about what we're saying here--"The purpose of the act is the repealing of the preamble of the act." Just think about how people are going to read this. They're going to say: "What's the preamble of the act? What is this terrible thing that the government is seeking to repeal?"

They are seeking to repeal: "It is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees."

It is imperative. We've actually had a discussion around procedure in this matter. It is now the policy of the government of the province of Ontario, and in particular of the Labour ministry and minister, that the purpose of the Labour Relations Act, among other things, is to repeal the preamble. Do we think that sends out a message?

I know there are those who will have concerns and criticisms of previous impact studies that have been done that might be dealing with the impact this legislation will have, but I'll tell you something: I do not want to vote against the existing preamble. It's not replaced by anything. The preamble, the set of principles, the guidance, the road we travel down have now been taken away, and what is put in its place? Nothing. There is now no preamble.

I don't think there's any one of us whose constituencies have not been drastically and badly impacted by the recession, but people have lost jobs, many for the very first time in their lives. My goodness gracious, if there's one thing I would want to hold out, it's that the purpose of labour relations in the province of Ontario is to further harmonious relations between employers and employees, not to repeal them. I want to advertise that. That's new investment. It's new jobs. It's sending out some message.

I know I spoke to the last point first, but I was very concerned with what this is going to do. I know the government wants to do this: It would probably just want to have the bill say in one section, "The preamble is repealed," but it can't do that. It has one other way it can do it, but it hasn't done it that way. What it has done is that it has said the purpose of the legislation, the purpose of the act, the purpose of the Ontario Labour Relations Act of Ontario is to repeal the preamble.

Procedurally, though I still have some questions about that, you might be able to skirt around that. But I'll tell you something: When all is said and done, that sends out just one crummy message for job creation and investment in this province.

Is it replaced by another preamble? Is it replaced by a set of principles that must guide employers, employees and governments in this province? No, we'll have a blank spot, but we will have a purpose clause.

Now I move to the purpose clause, because I believe this is going to cause major difficulties. I believe this is going to be the subject matter of questions before the board. I believe, unless there are government amendments which I have not yet seen, and I don't believe that to be the case, that there will be, in a short period time, arguments made that sections themselves that are found within Bill 40 contravene the provisions contained within the purpose clause.

I think certainly around matters in organizing, in the right to know and in the right to choose freely it will be clear that those provisions, as proposed in Bill 40, will find themselves in contravention of the purpose clause in Bill 40. What is that going to do to the board? It's going to be appealed. It's going to be a matter of some judicial discretion. And do you know what? We're going to be back here. We're going to be back here dealing with this issue, because what you are doing is that you are making and giving to the board a web it will not be able to get itself out of.

1730

Part of the legislation will say, "This is what must take place." The purpose clause will say, "But it better not," and arguments will be made. It is clear that arguments will be made.

What is the solution to this? Obviously, and it's right in front of us and we don't have to reinvent the wheel, the solution is the preamble that now exists in the act. The solution is to reinstitute the balance, the principles, the direction that now exist in the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

But the government is not only not doing that, it is specifically taking it away. They want to say that the purpose of the act is, "To ensure that workers can freely exercise the right to organize by protecting the right of employees to choose, join and be represented by a trade union of their choice and to participate in the lawful activities of the trade union."

I'm not going to make any comments on "participate in the lawful activities," because I think we are all in favour of and all agree with that, but doesn't "freely exercise the right to organize" seem to indicate that if the bill is perceived in any way as not giving that right freely to organize it will be in contravention of itself?

Don't you see what you're doing? We're going to be back here, but we're going to be back here because of injustices that will have been done to workers in this province. I'm saying change it now before those injustices occur, because they will. Workers will be hurt by this type of purpose clause.

It is so clear that it is surprising. I don't think I'm going to get any response from government members on this and I'm going to anticipate that this silence is their quiet agreement with the position I'm taking.

Interjection.

Mr Offer: The parliamentary assistant says don't do that, and I say, if that isn't the case, I would be very concerned. I'm going to presume that. I know they will most likely vote in favour of the government's--

Ms Murdock: I would say so, yes.

Mr Offer: The parliamentary assistant says she would say so, but I can't help but believe that they probably see the problem in the purpose clause. I can't help myself but know that they understand this is going to cause difficulties for workers. They are going to have a set of rules which is going to be prescribed, probably regulated, under the Labour Relations Act, which is going to fly in the face of the purpose of the Labour Relations Act. Who is going to benefit from that? Who benefits from confusion? I know who doesn't: workers.

Ms Murdock: Lawyers.

Mr Offer: The parliamentary assistant says lawyers benefit from confusion. Well, the parliamentary assistant is a lawyer. I'm just a--

Ms Murdock: So are you.

Mr Offer: I'm an MPP, but with deep concerns over this first area.

I want to move to the second area, not with respect to subparagraph (i), because I've already spoken to that, but with respect to (ii) and (iii). I think we have to realize what we're saying here, "The extension of cooperative approaches between employers and trade unions in adapting to changes in the economy, developing workforce skills and promoting workplace productivity."

Let's think about that. Is that the purpose of the Labour Relations Act? They may be principles and areas we would like to explore, and deal with areas we might wish to promote, but is that the purpose of the Labour Relations Act? Is that, in all fairness, something which is and must dictate to the labour relations board how it is going to be guided? I would have thought that areas such as now exist in this part of the purpose clause are ones which may be the subject matter of initiatives, discussion, changes. But a purpose? You are trying to put in a purpose clause some substantive changes? That's not a purpose. That takes away from the logical development and evolution of good employee-employer relations, which do exist and continue to exist.

I have grave concerns as to that type of paragraph and clause falling within a purpose clause, because you don't know how and what the impact of this will be. You don't know how this is going to be used in argument. All we do know is that it will be. You're anticipating that this is something which can only be used in a way which will work to the advantage of workers in this province. I hope that is correct. I have a feeling that there are some who might use this type of clause to do the opposite, to stop and slow down the natural development of good employee-employer relations, use this type of clause, which says "extension of cooperative approaches," to slow down the extension of cooperative approaches. Oh, it can be argued that yes, we are still extending cooperative approaches, but if it were done outside the dictates of a purpose clause, it would be done quicker. We will now slow it down.

I have grave concerns over that type of implication and ramification and I know the members are not aware what the implications will be, absolutely. That is not meant in any sense of criticism at all; it is just that in the real world you cannot anticipate, you cannot predict, how words in a purpose clause are going to be used.

There is more of an assurance if broad principles in a preamble are inserted. That you can deal with with a much greater degree of certainty. In a purpose clause, you cannot. It is different. It is more mandatory.

It is something which is going to be used. We all know that. I just have a feeling that the government members think it's only going to be used one way. I am issuing a caution on behalf of workers of this province that it just might not be the case. You might be building a web we will be back here in a year trying to get out of, and the problem is that it will be done at the expense of injustice perpetrated on the workers of this province.

Why change something which works? Why change and move away from principles that have been and continue to be a signpost to invest in this province, that continue to send out a symbol of the respect that must and should and can be given to employers and employees in this province, a consultation of cooperation? That's what this purpose clause is ripping out. It's ripping out the signpost of investment and job creation in this province.

1740

I might have to speak a little quickly, because I have paragraphs 3 and 4 that I still want to deal with in the purpose clause. I know we are under such a terrible time constraint that we have absolutely no real opportunity to deal with some of these areas.

"3. To promote harmonious labour relations, industrial stability and the ongoing settlement of differences between employers and trade unions."

What does it mean, "to promote harmonious labour relations"? What does it mean, to promote "industrial stability"? Have you thought what it means, to promote "industrial stability," the arguments that are going to be made in order to maintain and comply with the purpose of the legislation? Do you have any idea what you are creating here? These arguments, I know, are going to be proven correct, in my opinion, but unfortunately, because I've already heard from the parliamentary assistant that you're going to be voting in favour of the purpose clause, it's going to be after we've been shown how difficult this is going to be.

"4 To provide for effective, fair and expeditious methods of dispute resolution."

Have you ever thought about what that means? What does it mean to provide for an effective, fair and expeditious method of dispute resolution? I'll ask one question: For whom? For employees? It doesn't say "for employees." For both parties? What happens when an effective, fair and expeditious method of dispute resolution is different for one party than for the other?

I don't disagree with the need to make certain there are effective, fair and expeditious methods of dispute resolution, but it shouldn't be in the purpose clause; it should be part of the legislation, the framework applicable to all people who find themselves within the Ontario Labour Relations Act, which I might remind government members, as they've now agreed, will probably include agricultural and horticultural workers. Maybe that type of framework is something that should be part of the legislation. In fact, it is not only wrong but totally improper to do in a purpose clause what should be done in legislative form.

Why is it so difficult for the Minister of Labour to unveil, in his opinion, how effective, fair and expeditious methods of dispute resolution should take place? Why can't the Minister of Labour do that? Why is it left to a purpose clause? We know what that's going to mean. It means the board is going to make up the rules.

I go back to my first question: effective, fair and expeditious for whom? I think we have some grave difficulties here. I think you are creating in a purpose clause something which you just won't be able to stop.

I know the time is short on this, and I have asked the Chair for a few moments just before the end of the day to bring up a matter I would like to discuss. So I'm going to leave it at that, and to say, in a word, "concern." I'm concerned about what this purpose clause says. I'm concerned about what its impact will be. I'm concerned that this purpose clause may not work in the best interests of the workers of this province. I'm concerned that there are areas and aspects in the purpose clause which I believe are best left to legislation.

I'm not saying not to deal with the issues; I'm saying leave it to legislation, to the framework of legislation. Let us hold on to and applaud the preamble that now exists in the Labour Relations Act. We should be sending out bulletins that this is the preamble. But no; in this proposal by the government we are left with, at the end of the purpose clause, "and the act is further amended by repealing the preamble to the act." What a message.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Ms Witmer, any comment to make?

Mrs Witmer: Oh, I didn't realize you were finished, Mr Offer.

Mr Offer: Could I, on a point of order--I did speak with the Chair that there would be some time left prior to adjournment to deal with an issue I would like to bring before the committee; I wouldn't think more than 10 minutes. I don't know if the Chair is--

The Vice-Chair: Ms Witmer is entitled to comment, and I'm sure she can make her comment.

Mrs Witmer: Well, my comments will be longer than 10 minutes.

The Vice-Chair: But we've only got 12 minutes until the end of the day.

Mrs Witmer: But we're dealing with a very contentious issue, and I would personally prefer to do it at the start of a day rather than do part of it now--you tend to repeat yourself again on Monday--if that's agreeable.

The Vice-Chair: Agreed? That way you get all the important--

Mrs Witmer: Makes sense to me.

Ms Murdock: I'm in agreement with that. It makes good sense and Mr Offer has agreed with the Chair that he has a motion to bring, or an issue to raise.

Mr Offer: It's not a motion. In fairness, I did not indicate to the Chair what subject matter I would be bringing forward, but only that I was bringing something forward, just to give him some notice. I just want everybody to know exactly what I said to the Chair.

I have a concern that we are doing this clause-by-clause analysis in this room. Many people are very concerned about this legislation. There are others who are in favour of the legislation; there are people we've spoken to who are opposed. I am extremely concerned that this deliberation is not taking place in the Amethyst Room. I've walked by the Amethyst Room; I understand that yesterday and today nothing has been going on in the Amethyst Room. We had our hearings as best we could and many people watched those proceedings, and now that we are discussing this aspect of the legislation and when the room, I understand, is available, not to take advantage of that is--first, I would like to know, because two days have gone by, whether we can now move back in.

I just wanted to conclude. Mr Chair, I did indicate that I was going to bring the matter before you. I indicated to members of the committee that I did not tell you what the subject matter was. I did not believe it was going to be in the form of a motion, but rather a discussion, and I think you have heard and gleaned from my comments what my concern was.

1750

Ms Murdock: It seems to be a question to which I should know the answer. However, are matters in the Amethyst Room--

Mr Offer: It wasn't to the parliamentary assistant.

Ms Murdock: No, no, I'm part of the discussion. You raised a point. I'm asking the question on your--

Mr Offer: I don't want you to think I was directing it to you. I wasn't.

Ms Murdock: I know. I am a member of this committee. I'm not speaking as the parliamentary assistant; I'm speaking as the member for Sudbury. When the Amethyst Room is being taped, is the House, when it's in session, shown before the Amethyst Room, or how does that work? That's what I'm asking.

The Chair: Perhaps the clerk can respond to that. Mr Decker, please.

Clerk Pro Tem (Mr Todd Decker): When the House is in session, the House is broadcast on the legislative channel.

Ms Murdock: Until 6?

Clerk Pro Tem: Yes. Any committee that's meeting in room 151, when the House is also sitting, is taped and the committee session is rebroadcast, or as many committee sessions as there are during the week are rebroadcast in sequence on Fridays on the parliamentary channel.

The Chair: The committee should also know that when we are in the Amethyst Room, automatically French language translation staff are brought in, who otherwise wouldn't be in there, and the broadcast services people, of course, have to apply their energies not only to operating the studio upstairs that deals with the Legislature, the assembly itself, but also they then have to split their staff up and move some of their staff downstairs into the room adjoining the Amethyst Room, where they monitor and supervise the taping in the Amethyst Room.

Are you making a motion, Mr Offer?

Mr Offer: If that's what it takes, I certainly would.

The Chair: One moment. Before that, is there any consensus here that doesn't necessitate a motion?

Ms Murdock: The only concern I have, and it's just an observation I've made since I became a member in 1990, is that whenever television cameras are around, the theatrics that accompany the camera usually increase. It is not a tested observation, by any stretch of the imagination, it is simply something I have noted, and I would have some concern about that. But I agree with Mr Offer that there are lots of people, including my father, who want to know what's happening in this committee.

The Chair: May I make one further comment just by way of information? I am advised by the clerk that this committee room 1 is the committee room which is regularly assigned to the resources development committee. At the same time, though, during yesterday and today there were no other committees meeting, so nobody would have been displaced. The clerk isn't aware at the moment which committee is usually associated with or whose home plate is in the Amethyst Room, but it would be a matter of prevailing on the Clerk and displacing that other committee, because it will, as I understand it, start sitting next week, this week being a short week, a strange week.

Mrs Witmer: I would certainly concur. This is a bill of great importance to the people in this province, and I was impressed with the number of people who took advantage of the opportunity to watch the proceedings during the summer and who are very interested in the discussion that's taking place. I think we have an obligation to inform the public about the amendments which the government and the opposition parties have introduced and also the discussion around those amendments. I strongly support moving to the Amethyst Room if that's at all possible.

The Chair: Can I interrupt before Mr Arnott and make one further observation? Perhaps I'm the only person concerned about this, in which case it means nothing, but when we're in the Amethyst Room, the one television set there is used to monitor what's being taped in the Amethyst Room as compared to monitoring the House. What that means is that people like me who are anxious to participate in this most important debate about stripping away from innocent accident victims what few rights the last government left to them and betraying a profound promise that this party made in the last election campaign and as it sat in opposition during the last Legislature--I don't know whether I speak for anybody else; I have enjoyed being able to monitor the proceedings in the House from this room. Again, I make that as an observation.

Mr Arnott: There is no more important bill that will be coming before this Legislature in this term of this government than Bill 40. I think it's definitely in the public interest that it be on television.

The Chair: Where does it rank with respect to the auto insurance bill? Perhaps you'd consult with your critic first.

Mr Hope: Mr Kormos, I agree with you about a piece of legislation that's important to a lot of people out there. Furthermore, I know my own constituents who work most Fridays, the working people I represent, don't always have the ability to watch TV on Friday. They've asked me how they make sure they can obtain not so much the Hansards but the final product, because they understand the political ramifications and the political intensity that's involved in this piece of legislation. What they're looking for is the final product.

I said, "If you're interested in what's being said, there's the ability to access Hansard, which is always available upon request." A lot of people have taken that into consideration. But where they are really focusing their attention is the final product, because everybody has had their input into this legislation and they thought it was most appropriate.

I agree it's important for us as members of the Legislature to pay attention to the debates going on both in here and in the House and make sure we can communicate all aspects of the legislation. I disagree with Mr Arnott: All pieces of legislation produced in the Ontario Legislature are important to all people of this province, and I would like to try, as the member representing the constituents of Chatham-Kent, to be up on as much of all the legislation as possible, both in the House and in committee, making sure I'm making informed decisions on behalf of the people I represent.

I would say it would be most appropriate to stay in the confines of this room and proceed to get the eight sessional days and then to move into committee of the whole House, where the public will have from 1:30 till 6 o'clock, and reruns after that, to make sure the appropriate part of the debates are there.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on this matter? Mr Offer, did you want to make a motion?

Mr Offer: Yes. I'll move that the clause-by-clause deliberation of the resources committee dealing with Bill 40 be moved to the Amethyst Room so that the public will have the opportunity to view the deliberations taking place over the clauses that make up this bill.

The Chair: The motion's on the floor. Mr Arnott.

Interjection.

The Chair: We're not voting on it until people have spoken to it. That's the democratic way.

Ms Murdock: I thought we had spoken to it.

The Chair: Any further discussion on the motion? All in favour, please indicate. Opposed? The motion is defeated.

It's 6 o'clock, and we're adjourned until Monday at 3:30 or the end of routine proceedings. Thank you, people.

The committee adjourned at 1759.